Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Oleg Hahm
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 > >>

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Ludwig Knüpfer
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Kees Bakker
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Oleg Hahm
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`? > > >

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread 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! Cheers, Oleg -- rio_dprintk (RIO_DEBUG_ROUTE, "LIES! DAMN LIES! %d LIES!\n",Lies);

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Ludwig Knüpfer
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Ludwig Knüpfer
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-14 Thread Kees Bakker
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 <

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread Martin
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread Kaspar Schleiser
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread 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 has been an undocumented

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread Martin
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

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread 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 `unsigned int` for iterator variables in a loop

Re: [riot-devel] Coding conventions amendment

2016-10-12 Thread René Kijewski
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