Hi Kees!
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:05:51AM +0200, Kees Bakker wrote:
> On 13-10-16 22:42, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> > On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> > > > > Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
> > > > > > > conventions explicitly?
> > > > > What about `size_t`?
> > > +1 for size_t
> > Well, any convention would need careful wording.
> >
> > ```
> > for (uint32_t timeout = 1; timeout < (10LU*1000*1000); timeout *= 2) {
> > if(try()) break;
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > ... cannot blindly by convention converted to size_t as loop variable.
>
> Of course not.
> But I believe the question was more, in case of an unsigned type,
> should we use "unsigned int" or size_t. In that case I would go for size_t.
No, the initial question was whether we should recommend (unsigned) int (or
(s)size_t) as loop iterator variable types.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Thanks, I feel much better now!\n", dev->name);
linux-2.6.6/drivers/net/de620.c
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
