[PATCH 2/3] Config file fixes.
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Aug 8 16:12:20 BST 2011
Richard Kettlewell writes ("Re: [PATCH 2/3] Config file fixes."):
> On 04/08/2011 15:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We seem to be gradually abolishing [c]string_t. Perhaps we should do
> > so globally ? (Says the guy with a huge outstanding patch serieses...)
> I'll add it to my list. l-)
> > This is an excessive recursion catch, isn't it ? Why is it a uint32_t
> > even ? I think my uint32_t => int changes should probably have
> > touched this too.
> Oh, yes, int would be much better.
> >> - uint32_t lineno;
> >> + int lineno;
> > I remember spotting this and not changing it. I can't remember why.
> I've skimmed its uses again and still can't see any reason not to make
> it 'int'. It's assigned from config_lineno which is an int in current
> HEAD, so it's not like it gives you an extra 2 billion lines of elbow
> room (in case you want to use the config infrastructure to its true
> potential l-)
> >> + /* The caller is expected to only give us [0-9]+,
> >> + * so we skip some of the usual syntax checking. */
> > By "the caller" you mean flex ?
> Yes; the only caller of numnode is in conffile.fl:
Right. I was just a bit curious about the comment but I think it's
fine in that context.
> I can add the extra checking if
> you think that's worthwhile.
No, not really.
More information about the sgo-software-discuss