Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!eichin From: eichin@athena.mit.edu (Mark W. Eichin) Subject: Re: Some questions, some fixes, some suggestions In-Reply-To: dealwisb@cognos.com's message of 25 Jul 92 18:23:54 GMT Message-ID: <EICHIN.92Jul25191400@portnoy.mit.edu> Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Nntp-Posting-Host: portnoy.mit.edu Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology References: <1992Jul25.182354.14203@cognos.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:14:05 GMT Lines: 26 According to dealwisb@cognos.com (Brian de Alwis): >> The tty_ring patch from Mark Eichin (eichin@athena.mit.edu) in >> <EICHIN.92Jul21092841@tweedledumber.mit.edu> says that the rbp and cpp >> paramters to nextc() were reversed - not so in my code... On closer inspection, it appears that rather than changing nextc, all of the *uses* of nextc were changed. If you look at tty_ring.c, all of the ring buffer ops consistently take a struct ringb* as the "last" argument. In 0.0, all uses of nextc passed the ringb as the first argument, probably because someone read the order of the argument declarations in the definition of nextc... For clarity, I'd still suggest that line 83 be changed from: nextc(cpp, rbp) struct ringb *rbp; char **cpp; { to nextc(cpp, rbp) char **cpp; struct ringb *rbp; { so that people are less confused by it; there have been C compilers that got the argument handling wrong if the order didn't match, though the compiler you'd be using to compile this isn't one of them. (Thanks for pointing this out and getting me to look at it further. I still want to know why line 25 says " * NOT MAKE USE THIS WORK." instead of "* NOT MAKE USE OF THIS WORK." as it did in 0.0... and the reference in 2.12 of terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)'s unofficial FAQ should probably be elided. The tty problems aluded to there are from some other source.) _Mark_ <eichin@athena.mit.edu> MIT Student Information Processing Board