> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:09:23PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > > > On 19 Jul 2017, at 11:21, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:23:30AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 18 Jul 2017, at 17:28, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:01:22AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > >>>> Remove CxImage linking. > > >>>> Support Windows BMP format. > > >>> > > >>> Too bad there is no small/maintained library which would do that for us > > >>> :-/ From a quick glance, looks ok. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> +static inline size_t compute_dib_stride(unsigned width, unsigned > > >>>> bit_count) > > >>> > > >>> Can you use full type names, unsigned int? > > >> > > >> No. Really, no ;-) Otherwise, for consistency, you should replace ‘int’ > > >> with ‘signed int’, > > > > > > The way I see it, 'signed'/'unsigned' are type modifiers, 'int' is an > > > actual type name. > > > > Yes. But ‘long’ is not. It is also a modifier. So why allow “long” or > > “short" but not “unsigned”? > > Or are you also writing “long int” and “short int”? > > long/short are enough to make the storage size of the integer obvious, > even if you don't know that long means long int. > "unsigned" does not make this obvious unless you know that "unsigned" > means "unsigned int" > Section 6.7.2 of C99 standard specified "unsigned" as type. The fact you are not familiar with this is an opinion I don't personally share. "long" does not specify a type as "unsigned" doesn't. > > > > > Huge difference to me. > > > > No, really not, at least as far as C and usage are concerned. It’s > > just a personal preference. So if Frediano prefers to write > > ‘unsigned’, I think it’s OK, and I will most likely write the same > > way. > > I'll byte here, in general (not necessarily in this case) "it's just > personal preference" is not a good argument at all, we want a consistent > codebase, ideally one which is readable. Just because something is valid with > the C standard does not mean saying "personal preference" is a good > justification for using it (and still generally speaking, less typing > often means something less readable, and you read code more than you > write it). > So let's write "long int" for anything. "unsigned" is not less typing, it's a type specified by the language. > > > > > > > you cannot guess the range of the values you > > > can store in there. So let's just be specific. > > > > The language is quite clear that ‘unsigned’ means ‘unsigned int’. > > There is no guessing involved whatsoever. The guessing about > > the size is because C is not specific about the size of ‘int’ in bits, > > which is why we have <stdint.h>. > > Yes, the spec is clear about it. The proportion of C coders who will > know when reading "unsigned" that it means "unsigned int" is what I'm > questioning here, and why I'm pushing for a more specific type. > > Christophe > I personally have seen tons of "unsigned" reading code. If some C coders don't know that syntax they can learn it. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel