Hi, On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> wrote: > Hi Arnaud! > > * Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com>, 20111017 22:41: >> + buf[0] = '\0'; >> + getnanouptime(&ts); >> + err = snprintf(buf, sizeof buf, "[%zd.%.6ld] ", >> + ts.tv_sec, ts.tv_nsec / 1000); > > What's the use of buf[0] = '\0'? snprintf() will overwrite it anyway, > right? leftover from previous debug I guess; fixed. > Also. please use %jd and cast ts.tv_sec to intmax_t. The size of > time_t and size_t are independent. fixed. > As far as I know, you should be able > to use a 64-bit time_t on i386 by simply changing the typedef and > recompiling everything. > As long as you do not care about breaking the ABI, yes. But yet, the kernel and the userland may not need to each have the same representation of what `time_t' is, as long as they agree on the interface. >> + bufp = buf; >> + while (*bufp != '\0') { >> + __msgbuf_do_addchar(mbp, seq, *bufp); >> + bufp++; >> + } > > It would be nicer to write this as follows: > > for (bufp = buf; *bufp != '\0'; bufp++) > __msgbuf_do_addchar(mbp, seq, *bufp); > fixed. >> - int msg_needsnl; /* set when newline needed */ >> + uint32_t msg_flags; > > Why change this to uint32_t instead of leaving it the way it is (or > changing it to unsigned int)? Even though they are likely to be equal in > size, there is no reason why msg_flags must be 32 bits. :-) > made it `unsigned int'; I don't like playing with signed bit-field. - Arnaud > -- > Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> > WWW: http://80386.nl/ >Received on Mon Oct 17 2011 - 22:16:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:19 UTC