Hi, Dave -
> Sorry to be so long in looking at this. I've had a look now and here are
> my notes:
No problem, thanks!
> [...]
> * Are // style comments accepted by the C compilers on all the
> platforms we support?
Evidently yes, they're all over the code base.
> * For the case of the non-existent divisor, why not just clear
> 'divisor' and set 'divisor_mult' to 1.0 as described by the comment?
Changed.
> * For the bitfield overflow checks, could that perhaps be automated,
> and the hard coded limits removed by assigning to the field in 'out'
> and then checking that they are still equal?
I was worried that a Smart (tm) compiler might nuke the effectiveness
of such a test, but testing shows gcc is fine, so changed.
> * In __pmParseUnitsStrPart(), why continue to loop over the various
> keywords once it is known that 'dimension' is no longer 'd_none' or
> that the appropriate 'dimXXX' is not longer zero? [...]
Changed.
> * Strange -- I see the new files [...]
Changed. :-)
> * Style nit -- PCP coding style does not use a space between a
> function/macro name and the left paren in function/macro calls.
Changed.
- FChE
|