On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 09:39:20 -0600 Ross Zwisler <zwisler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IMO trying to support both types of inputs (ending with TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE > and just relying on the element count) is probably bad long term because one > or the other will break and we may not notice, and we'll have to make sure we > keep up both. I plan on really only supporting the one type (defined size), the TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE will not be shown in the man pages. The reason I want to keep them is mostly for debugging (can add this to test issues and what not). So yeah, I agree we only want to support one, and we are going to do that, but the other will still be there "hidden" from the users ;-) > > As we don't really have users yet (do we?) can we just move fully over to the > count way and give on the other? > > In either case, we probably need to still update the comments above > type_alloc(), traceeval_init_data_size() and traceeval_insert_size() which > talk about how we rely on TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE to terminate our element lists. Will do that in another patch. But right now I'm working on the man pages, and that's really where I expect people to get their information on how to use the library. > > What we have here though is correct: > Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <zwisler@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, -- Steve
|