On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 09:03 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Øyvind Harboe
>> wrote:
>> > Do we really want to go down the path of macros?
>>
>> Yes. The ifs obscure the actual algorithm by turning a short one-li
Committed as-is.
Next step is to submit a more general patch if we want to go further down this
road.
This is one of those times I wish we had some sensible usage of C++ and
exception handling rather than to invent some placeholder in OpenOCD.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware con
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 09:03 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Øyvind Harboe
> wrote:
> > Do we really want to go down the path of macros?
>
> Yes. The ifs obscure the actual algorithm by turning a short one-line
> function call into five lines of (dense) operator sou
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Do we really want to go down the path of macros?
Yes. The ifs obscure the actual algorithm by turning a short one-line
function call into five lines of (dense) operator soup with the actual
action lost somewhere in between.
> There are two
Do we really want to go down the path of macros?
There are two audiences for this code:
- those that work on the code all the time
- the casual reader/debugger
For the second group, the code is not less readable.
The ARM11 code has a lot of strange microconstructs that I have to decode
when I t
- use macro for standard error handling
arm11-vs-1548-improve-readability
Description: Binary data
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
