Hi,
Am 14. Oktober 2016 10:04:07 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
>Hi Ludwig!
>
>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
>> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is
>targeted
>> at 32 bit architectures,
>
>I object!
With what
Hi Ludwig!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is targeted
> at 32 bit architectures,
I object!
Cheers,
Oleg
--
rio_dprintk (RIO_DEBUG_ROUTE, "LIES! DAMN LIES! %d LIES!\n",Lies);
Hi Ludwig!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:26:19PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> Am 14. Oktober 2016 10:04:07 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
> >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:50AM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> >> In general it is safer to explicate the integer width. As RIOT is
> >>
Hi,
Am 14. Oktober 2016 08:05:51 MESZ, schrieb Kees Bakker :
>But I believe the question was more, in case of an unsigned type,
>should we use "unsigned int" or size_t. In that case I would go for
>size_t.
BTW: there is also the signed type `ssize_t`.
Cheers,
Ludwig
On 14-10-16 10:05, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Hi Kees!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:05:51AM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote:
On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
conventions explicitly?
What about `size_t`?
+1
Hi Kees!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:05:51AM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote:
> On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> > On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> > > > > Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
> > > > > > > conventions explicitly?
> > > > > What about `size_t`?
> > >
Hi,
Am 13. Oktober 2016 22:42:11 MESZ, schrieb Kaspar Schleiser
:
>Hi,
>
>On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
>> conventions explicitly?
>>> > What about `size_t`?
>> +1 for size_t
>
>Well, any convention
On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
Hi,
On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
conventions explicitly?
What about `size_t`?
+1 for size_t
Well, any convention would need careful wording.
```
for (uint32_t timeout = 1; timeout <