Add header guards and fix some compiler warnings #29
Conversation
mlund
commented
Jul 18, 2023
mlund
commented
- Add missing header guards
- Unify header define names
- Fix a few mainly integer size related warnings
| @@ -837,4 +837,4 @@ void flushkeybuf(void); | |||
| unsigned char cinput( | |||
| unsigned char* buffer, unsigned char buflen, unsigned char flags); | |||
|
|
|||
| #endif // M65LIBC_CONIO_H | |||
| #endif /* __MEGA65_CONIO_H */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On this one /* .. */ is used, but the rest in the PR uses //. It would hurt if it was consistent, using // is C99 and will not work with C89/C94. C99 is close to 25 years old, but I do not know if we expect issues with old compilers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh ok, I think we can resolve it in a separate issue, either now or when a new compiler becomes relevant. I'm unsure of what standards are out there.
| @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ void mega65_sdcard_unmap_sector_buffer(void) | |||
|
|
|||
| unsigned short timeout; | |||
|
|
|||
| // @todo Return -1 corresponds to 255. Is this what we want? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume all bits set is an error value. This corresponds a bit to EOF which is used by some C library functions for error result.
Typically such cases use int in as the return type. This may be less ideal on an 8-bit CPU when given the choice of return type.
Personally I think it is ugly to return -1 when the return type is unsigned. One can use ~0 or ~0u, or perhaps better a macro to represent it.
Another way is to use int8_t as the return type which would signal that one can test for error by testing if the result is less than 0. In such case a negative value does not look inappropriate, which it kind of does now.
