Hi, all! Well, I think I need to add something to discussion. We actually have 3 problems here.
1. Type defintions problem. 2. As [1] is decided, there is transition needed. 3. Whatever is done, it does not add to functionality, only maintainability. As it is generally considered, when release preparation is done, only functional changes make sense, so These changes, IMHO, should happen after 0.2.0. Otherwise, I'm with C99 naming, because it has lots of useful macros with them, and is more useful for developers. As I'm Linux kernel developer, shorter form is closer to me, but for user space, C99 form is better and more common. just my $0.009 All the best, S. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
