13 Dec
2011
13 Dec
'11
10:35 p.m.
---
src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c b/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
index 5f28992..fc29506 100644
--- a/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
+++ b/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ enum dnload_mode {
MODE_C155,
MODE_ROMLOAD,
MODE_MTK,
+ MODE_INVALID,
};
struct dnload {
@@ -1184,7 +1185,7 @@ static int parse_mode(const char *arg)
else if (!strcasecmp(arg, "mtk"))
return MODE_MTK;
- return -1;
+ return MODE_INVALID;
}
#define HELP_TEXT \
@@ -1413,7 +1414,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
break;
case 'm':
dnload.mode = parse_mode(optarg);
- if (dnload.mode < 0)
+ if (dnload.mode == MODE_INVALID)
usage(argv[0]);
break;
case 's':
--
1.7.8
14 Dec
14 Dec
5:25 a.m.
Alexander Huemer wrote:
diff --git a/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
b/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
index 5f28992..fc29506 100644
--- a/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
+++ b/src/host/osmocon/osmocon.c
@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ enum dnload_mode {
MODE_C155,
MODE_ROMLOAD,
MODE_MTK,
+ MODE_INVALID,
};
struct dnload {
@@ -1184,7 +1185,7 @@ static int parse_mode(const char *arg)
else if (!strcasecmp(arg, "mtk"))
return MODE_MTK;
- return -1;
+ return MODE_INVALID;
}
#define HELP_TEXT \
@@ -1413,7 +1414,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
break;
case 'm':
dnload.mode = parse_mode(optarg);
- if (dnload.mode < 0)
+ if (dnload.mode == MODE_INVALID)
usage(argv[0]);
break;
case 's':
How was it incorrect before?
//Peter
7:28 a.m.
How was it incorrect before?
According to specs, enum types _can_ be unsigned and so the test would
be always false.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2579230/signedness-of-enum-in-c-c99-c-cx…
Cheers,
Sylvain
7:50 a.m.
How was it incorrect before?
According to specs, enum types _can_ be unsigned and so the test
would be always false.
7:55 a.m.
Sylvain Munaut wrote:
Ok. I thought perhaps the first enum was set to 0, which guarantees
that all following enums are positive integers.
They are all positive integers ...
That's only certain if one enum value is defined to >= 0, and no
later enum is defined to < 0. If no enum value is defined at all,
then they may very well be negative.
How was it
incorrect before?
According to specs, enum types _can_ be unsigned and so the test
would be always false. And since the enum type in this case is unsigned, an
unsigned value
can never be inferior to 0 and so the test is always false.
enums don't have signedness AFAIU?
//Peter
8:03 a.m.
That's only certain if one enum value is defined
to >= 0, and no
later enum is defined to < 0. If no enum value is defined at all,
then they may very well be negative.
Well yes, I was talking about this particular case.
And since the
enum type in this case is unsigned, an unsigned value
can never be inferior to 0 and so the test is always false.
enums don't have signedness AFAIU?
8:07 a.m.
That's only certain if one enum value is defined
to >= 0, and no
later enum is defined to < 0. If no enum value is defined at all,
then they may very well be negative.
Oh, I actually mis-read this in my last answer.
I'm pretty sure that the first value defaults to 0 if not forced to
another value.
Cheers,
Sylvain
8:33 a.m.
Sylvain Munaut wrote:
I think not neccessarily so. If there is no specified value for any
enum value then IIRC they are all undefined, and could thus also be
negative. Bad.
//Peter
That's
only certain if one enum value is defined to >= 0, and no
later enum is defined to < 0. If no enum value is defined at all,
then they may very well be negative.
Oh, I actually mis-read this in my last answer.
I'm pretty sure that the first value defaults to 0 if not forced to
another value.
8:43 a.m.
Hi,
I think not neccessarily so. If there is no specified
value for any
enum value then IIRC they are all undefined, and could thus also be
negative. Bad.
The C99 standard clearly states ( 6.7.2.2 paragraph 3 )
"An enumerator with = defines its enumeration constant as the value of
the constant expression. If the first enumerator has no =, the value
of its enumeration constant is 0."
Cheers,
Sylvain
8:47 a.m.
Hi!
Sylvain Munaut wrote:
Ah good! I guess we only care about C99 compilers.
//Peter
I think not
neccessarily so. If there is no specified value for any
enum value then IIRC they are all undefined, and could thus also be
negative. Bad.
The C99 standard clearly states ( 6.7.2.2 paragraph 3 )
"An enumerator with = defines its enumeration constant as the value of
the constant expression. If the first enumerator has no =, the value
of its enumeration constant is 0."
4526
days inactive
4527
days old
baseband-devel@lists.osmocom.org
10 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexander Huemer -
Peter Stuge -
Sylvain Munaut