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

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> 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
> 

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