[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
> So, to recap:
> -s-=PROP is now -s-PROP
> -ns (nosort) is now -r0 ?
>
> Am I right ?
Yes. Options starting with '-s' now are all related to
stripping: -s0, -s1, -s2, -s-PROP. The sorting options will be '-t0' and
'-t1' if Bob agree.
> Grr ... I thought that static buffer sizes were only used when
> one was lazy enough not to cope with any number. My patch DID
> this, and it was changed to a hardcoded size ??
I think the code must be above all consistent, otherwise it is not (quickly)
understandable. I simply made your code fit into the existing framework.
> There are already too damn many hardcoded sizes in Allegro, so
> adding one that was not hardcoded before is a bit ... masochistic.
> And we don't really care about memory fragmentation in the 'dat'
> case...
Either the whole 'dat' code uses dynamically allocated arrays or it uses
fixed size arrays. Any middle solution is IMHO bad.
--
Eric Botcazou
ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx