|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2006-08-14 23:36:14
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 09:42 +0300, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote: > > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > > ntfsinfo.c > > > > Log Message: > > > > fix endianness in ntfsinfo preparation fix to index code > > > > > > > > btw, Szaka, you really should consider installing some cross-compiler for > > > > BE systems and qemu to test your changes. > > > > > > I've explain this already. All access will be fixed bet setter and getters. > > > It's double work doing now separately. > > > > You still have not given an example of what that will look like even > > though I have asked you at least once before and am asking again now, > > please show us an example... > > Actually I did a few times, e.g. here, over three years ago: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ntfs-dev&m=104887800631790&w=2 > > Please also note that when I was back I've had over 800 emails, 140+ still > not fully read/answered and have/had plenty of other things to arrange and > do, among others, to somehow recover from a nasty virus infection. So why did you say that my description and criticims of your getters/setters had nothing to do with what I described? The example that you are showing above is the exact abstraction I was criticising! And if that is all you are planning than no thanks. It is a completely unnecessary performance hit I am not willing to take. If you still think I am misunderstanding you then you will have to give a lot more details than that email you reference above so I can understand what you mean... To help you out here is what I wrote that you said I was misunderstanding: <quote> That is your opinion. I don't like this "setters and getters" abstraction at all. I think it is completely unnecessary code obfuscation and makes the code unreadable and unmaintanable. cpu_to_le* and le*_to_cpu is correct and shows what is going on and nothing else is needed. Sometimes we do _not_ want conversion because we are reading a value and then writing it directly and the conversion just wastes CPU cycles. Further we compare values in little endian when comparing for equality but we compare in cpu endianness when we compare for less/greater than, etc. All this is horrible to implement with your getters/setters abstractions... </quote> And you said that your getters/setters implementation is nothing like what my thinking is but it seems it is exactly like what I am thinking you are wanting to do. Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ |
