On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:16:34PM +0400, Ivan Kluchnikov wrote:
As you mentioned, refactoring of some parts of the
code is risky, but
when we use right code structure, it is more easy to find problems.
Also I think that after the end of refactoring, we should implement
set of tests, which will help us to find bugs and problems.
with the manual toying around my E71 can open webpages. By cheer
luck I spotted a "bts->bts = bts->bts" (which should have been a
(tbf->bts = bts). But so far it is okay.
The main issue is that I have now around 90 commits. It will be
not nice to review and changing direction will be difficult as well.
But e.g. my renaming of tfi/tlli in the code has lead me to create
a tbf_name() function that I use for logging. And I found places
that could have silently changed the tlli.
My selfish proposal would be to merge my branch to master and
continue the clean-up there once some people having done smoke
"testing" on it.
I have one question about C/C++ using in osmo-pcu
project. What I see,
that now the code migrates to C++, but previously we mainly used C. As
the result now osmo-pcu code is C and C++ mix, but I think that we
should use only one as basic.
I personally prefer to use C++ in osmo-pcu.
What do you think about it?
Do you plan to migrate the most parts of the code to C++?
yes, to a very tiny subject of C++. E.g. I don't want to use stl
and maybe only virtual functions when creating a GPRS TBF and a
EGPRS TBF.
--
- Holger Freyther <hfreyther(a)sysmocom.de>
http://www.sysmocom.de/
=======================================================================
* sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH
* Schivelbeiner Str. 5
* 10439 Berlin, Germany
* Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B
* Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Directors: Holger Freyther, Harald Welte