[Spice-devel] [vdagent-win PATCH v6 2/5] Initial rewrite of image conversion code

[Christophe Fergeau]

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 at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com>
> > > >>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20170719/4f89008e/attachment-0001.sig>