On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:03:49AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > 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. > [...] > > So let's write "long int" for anything. "unsigned" is not less typing, > it's a type specified by the language. I never said "unsigned" is not standard compliant, so I don't know why you keep coming back to that. I previously said that just because something is standard-compliant does not mean it's a good idea to do it, [insert your favourite obfuscated C contest example here]. In this particular case, since you feel strongly about it, feel free to ignore my comment, but I'll nonetheless keep thinking it makes things less readable ;) Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel