Hi Mike,
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sunday 26 February 2012 23:26:52 Simon Glass wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 26 February 2012 21:46:23 Simon Glass wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { ...
- state = state_get_current();
- os_parse_args(state, argc, argv);
We don't check the return value. Perhaps add a comment as to why.
since the code takes care of setting parse_err itself now, i'm not sure what to do with the return value
I agree it is right, just asking for a comment. Same with most of my other things - more comments as I suggested is nice for people that come into the code fresh.
my plan was to clean this up a bit more before submitting (such as adding comments). i was looking more for feedback on the general approach here and any fundamental sticking points since this is a semi-radical departure from what either of us posted earlier.
OK I see. Well actually I was expecting that we would need something along these lines eventually, since arg parsing belongs with the module that provides the argument I think. So as well to have it now, even if it doesn't have a lot of uses yet. It will.
in this case, i'm asking: should we just toss the return value and have it be void ?
I suggest not - even if we ignore it, it seems like information that should be returned. Perhaps we should make it more explicit by returning state->return_code with a comment that callers can use it now or later. But I think the way you have done it is fine.
Regards, Simon
-mike