!warnings:ARM compiler - fixed code vs inconsisting with standart C, …#44
!warnings:ARM compiler - fixed code vs inconsisting with standart C, …#44alexrayne wants to merge 1 commit intoinsane-adding-machines:masterfrom
Conversation
…that cause warnings
pointer type mis-mutch, packed vs unpacked pointer type mis-mutch,
!no binary const - C standart not provide binary (0b)constants, so ARM compiler fail on it.
* remove code with goto
| utf8_str = search_utf8_string(dev, arg->setup->wIndex, index - 1); | ||
| used = (utf8_str == NULL) ? -1 : | ||
| utf8_to_utf16(utf8_str, sd->wData, max_count); | ||
| utf8_to_utf16(utf8_str, (uint16_t*)sd->wData, max_count); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://github.com/insane-adding-machines/unicore-mx/blob/master/include/unicore-mx/usb/usbstd.h#L257
sd->wData is already uint16_t
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, that is not: sd->wData is of type "packed" uint16_t*, since it got from packed struct.
maybe there should be some comments. But , i guess, the temporary buffer preserve.buf - always aligned, so better to dropoff "packed" attribute, instead rewrite utf8_to_utf16 and search_utf8_string capable work with unaligned utf16 strings.
| if ((setup_data->bmRequestType & USB_REQ_TYPE_TYPE) != USB_REQ_TYPE_STANDARD) { | ||
| goto stall; | ||
| } | ||
| if ((setup_data->bmRequestType & USB_REQ_TYPE_TYPE) == USB_REQ_TYPE_STANDARD) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code style: 👎 from me.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| usbd_control_transfer_callback callback = transfer->user_data; | ||
| usbd_control_transfer_callback callback = (usbd_control_transfer_callback)transfer->user_data; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
C standard says: void * will automatically cast to any other type.
and this style is more maintanable.
see: http://stackoverflow.com/a/605858/1500988
note to myself: place link to C standard text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But with some stricts - you can assign any pointer TO void* ,
but if you want assign some* to typed* - need casts to destination type
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return transfer->buffer + transfer->transferred; | ||
| return (void*)((uintptr_t)transfer->buffer + transfer->transferred); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isnt transfer->buffer + transfer->transferred pointer arithmetic (valid in c).
what is the reason of writing it in a more obsured way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
void* have no information about what entry size is. So yes - compiler is right, when error on such a trick.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You point is valid.
GCC treat void * pointer same as char *, but that is non-standard behaviour.
| while (trailing_bytes_utf8-- > 0) { | ||
| utf32_ch = (utf32_ch << 6) | (utf8[i++] & 0b00111111); | ||
| utf32_ch = (utf32_ch << 6) | (utf8[i++] & 0x3f); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there was a specific reason (readability imo) to write these specific constant in binary notation.
but hexadecimal notation wont do any improvement either.
Update: (0b binary notation) dont seems to be in C specs, your point is valid.
2 participants
fixed code vs inconsisting with standart C on Keil ARM compiler, that cause warnings pointer type mis-mutch, packed vs unpacked pointer type mis-mutch,
!no binary const - C standart not provide binary (0b)constants, so ARM compiler fail on it.