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 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
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 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,
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
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 <
Am 10/12/2016 um 05:00 PM schrieb Oleg Hahm:
Hi Martin!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:52:37PM +0200, Landsmann, Martin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:57:50PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
Am 12. Oktober 2016 09:48:28 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
as far I'm concerned it
Hi,
On 10/12/2016 04:44 PM, René Kijewski wrote:
`size_t` is optimal for every architecture that does not use segmented memory.
... when iterating over array indices. Otherwise the width of it is as
uncertain (in respect to the underlying platform) as "unsigned int".
IMHO there's no need
Hi Martin!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:52:37PM +0200, Landsmann, Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:57:50PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> > > Am 12. Oktober 2016 09:48:28 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm
> > > :
> > > > as far I'm concerned it has been an undocumented
Hi,
Am 10/12/2016 um 04:37 PM schrieb Oleg Hahm:
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:57:50PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
Am 12. Oktober 2016 09:48:28 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
as far I'm concerned it has been an undocumented coding convention so far
to use `int` or
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:57:50PM +0200, Ludwig Knüpfer wrote:
> Am 12. Oktober 2016 09:48:28 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm :
> >as far I'm concerned it has been an undocumented coding convention so far
> >to use `int` or `unsigned int` for iterator variables in a loop
Am Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:33:11 +0200
schrieb Martin :
> Am 10/12/2016 um 12:57 PM schrieb Ludwig Knüpfer:
> > Am 12. Oktober 2016 09:48:28 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm
> > :
> >> as far I'm concerned it has been an undocumented coding convention
14 matches
Mail list logo