17 Nov
2009
17 Nov
'09
7:30 p.m.
Hello :)
Now I've implemented the TP-VPF-ENHANCED. To achieve that I added some
goto-stuff - i hope that's ok. I think it makes sense here.
It's again untested, but compiles fine. I'm working at the moment on a
way to test SMS-PDU decoding.
If that's easier you can simply merge the branch tp-vp from
git://github.com/stefreak/openbsc.git :)
The patch is attached.
Greetings,
Steffen
17 Nov
17 Nov
7:44 p.m.
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 19:30:39 Steffen 'stefreak' Neubauer wrote:
Hello :)
Now I've implemented the TP-VPF-ENHANCED. To achieve that I added some
goto-stuff - i hope that's ok. I think it makes sense here.
I think it is one of the cases where a function call makes more sense?
8:02 p.m.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:44:18 +0100
Holger Freyther <zecke(a)selfish.org> wrote:
I think it is one of the cases where a function call
makes more sense?
Hmm, really? All this stuff is only needed (as far as i know, of
course ;)) for the validity-period decoding - nowhere else. Would you
really put all those small VPF-implementations into their own
functions? At the moment only the service centre time stamp decoding
has it's own function because it's needed elsewhere.
Isn't it clear enough with 'goto'?
Greetings,
Steffen
18 Nov
18 Nov
9:43 a.m.
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 20:02:13 Steffen 'stefreak' Neubauer wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:44:18 +0100
Holger Freyther <zecke(a)selfish.org> wrote:
Yes, I would put all these into static methods... the compiler will inline
them for you. The problem with this amount of gotos is it is really hard to
understand which ways you are jumping. E.g. within "enhanced" you will do a
backward jump. The problem with that it is very hard to make sure that your
jumping will end... if/else if and function calls are much easier to read.
holger
I think it is one of the cases where a function
call makes more sense?
Hmm, really? All this stuff is only needed (as far as i know, of
course ;)) for the validity-period decoding - nowhere else. Would you
really put all those small VPF-implementations into their own
functions? At the moment only the service centre time stamp decoding
has it's own function because it's needed elsewhere.
Isn't it clear enough with 'goto'?
6:29 p.m.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:43:48 +0100
Holger Freyther <zecke(a)selfish.org> wrote:
Yes, I would put all these into static methods... the
compiler will
inline them for you. The problem with this amount of gotos is it is
really hard to understand which ways you are jumping. E.g. within
"enhanced" you will do a backward jump. The problem with that it is
very hard to make sure that your jumping will end... if/else if and
function calls are much easier to read.
Okay, Thank You for your comments!
The new patch is attached.
Again, If that's easier you can simply merge my tp-vp branch on github.
Thank You and Greetings,
Steffen
12:29 p.m.
Thanks,
applied your patch for VPF_ENHANCED.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
18 Nov
18 Nov
9:27 a.m.
Steffen 'stefreak' Neubauer schreef:
Hello :)
Now I've implemented the TP-VPF-ENHANCED. To achieve that I added some
goto-stuff - i hope that's ok. I think it makes sense here.
Goto seems here not necessary, I think. Why don't you just put the code
in each case: instead of jumping to a tag and go from there? Set the
return value retval or something and when you break out the switch
statement you return the retval. But that's just my humble opinion :)
5280
days inactive
5281
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Harald Welte -
Holger Freyther -
Nordin -
Steffen 'stefreak' Neubauer