On 05/01/2012 04:59 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Uri Lublin wrote:
>> Commit 4cccbed825fe1dc13812 accidently removed those calls,
>> when ! ifdef DYNAMIC_FDS blocks were removed.
> Commit 4cccbed825fe1dc13812 removes the possibility to choose between
> DYNAMIC_FDS and not, and makes the previously optional behavior
> enforced, so the code in !defined() was likely removed on purpose.
> (DYNAMIC_FDS was on by default, so it has always been used on Windows
> since the code was introduced. There have been no comments on that
> code either way, however.)
>
> I'm not sure if DYNAMIC_FDS or not DYNAMIC_FDS is more correct. The
> comment documenting the define wasn't completely clear to me. Awesome
> if you can help clear this up?
It seems DYNAMIC_FDS was not defined by default (at the time of above
commit).
$ git show 4cccbed825fe1dc138121640a6497d7d05aac159 # shows that
In libusb/os/poll_windows.h:
-//#define DYNAMIC_FDS ==> Was Commented out
In libusb/os/poll_windows.c:
All blocks are #if defined(DYNAMIC_FDS), and whole blocks are removed
In libusb/os/windows_usb.c:
All blocks are #if !defined(DYNAMIC_FDS) and whole blocks are removed
Removing both defined and !defined blocks is inconsistent (even if
DYNAMIC_FDS was
defined before that commit).
Thanks,
Uri.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
libusbx-devel mailing list
libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
