Re: [lwip-members] Fw: Fw: Fw: Re: Re[2]: [lwip] recent win32 commits

[Florian Schulze]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:59:18 +0200 Jani Monoses <address@hidden> wrote:

> Don't the two pragma's cancel out each other?
> Is there a need in icmp.h to have successive #include eps and #include
> #bps.
> instead of surrounding the 3 structs once.

No, I just did it because the other macros are done in the same way.

> Yes they aren't harmful but with similar practices in a short time there
> could be many more ifdefs as
> people who port lwip hardly ever use it as it is in CVS.

All other ports don't use the Microsoft Compiler, so they can do it better
without ifdefs.

> Ok now let's see if there's a way we can make this simpler for all.
> 1)have all packed structs in a separate header?

How would you do that in detail? What do the others think?

> 2)you could have separate ip,arp,icmp,tcp headers which just include the
> real ones and surround
> the include with your pragma.Is there a problem if the other tcp related
> structs get packed.
> From your mail obviously is not OK to have everything packed.And with
> putting these wrappers
> befor the lwip ones in the include patch you are solved.What do you
> think?

It might work, but again the Microsoft Compiler isn't easy to configure
where to get include files and I would have to use the same name for them.

What are the others thinking? Should this be changed? I think this is the
only architecture dependend thing in the core. We could move the packed
headers into there own include files in the arch/include directory. Called
like icmp_s.h or something. All other architecture dependend files are
already at such places.

Florian