Subject: Poll on ISSUE 1.7
From: Michael Rohleder (michael.rohleder@motorola.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 10:42:44 PST
Hi all,
This is just a trial for a short email poll. I have the feeling, this is something we can close easily.
According to Doug there are three options:
a) Use system currently in place in DirectC. (Andrzej recommends).
b) All access is done through API functions. Different #define or -D could be used to specify an optimization level. (Michael
recommends).
c) Use combination of direct and abstract modes, but with no redundancy. (Doug recommends)
I see some motion towards option c), which means We Remove "A" | "C".
Is there any agreement/disagreement on this? This might save us some minutes in the next call, hopefully ... Please note that this
is fully separated from the context discussion.
-Michael
"Stickley, John" wrote:
...
> With Solution 3) Can We Remove "A" | "C" ?
>
> I'm not too keen on always requiring pre-processed wrapper macros or
> other cumbersome functions if all the user wants to do is fetch values of simple
> scalar data types.
>
> The main purpose of abstract access should be only for access of more complex
> abstract data types as Doug described in solution 3) of in his e-mail. Simple
> scalar direct types should be accessed directly (hence the name !) for all reasons
> stated by Doug below.
>
> And as Michael pointed out, the debug/error check handling should be considered
> orthogonal to the access mechanism by making it a transparent run-time option.
>
> A corrollary to this then, is that we can probably get rid of the "A" | "C"
> specifiers in both the extern and the export declarations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 10:43:33 PST