> > 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 > I moved to "unsigned int" 2 versions ago. But still think that is a useful discussion. But honestly I think in this case the readability is quite an opinion and for me unsigned is like long, perfectly readable and I saw lot of code using just unsigned. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel