tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: xdrproc_t prototype

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:23:02AM +0100, Iain Hibbert wrote:
 > > > Ok I will investigate non-vararg prototype for xdrproc_t
 > > >
 > > > So far I only found one place where an xdrproc_t was called, which was
 > > > using two arguments, so (XDR *, const char *) would work fine. I don't
 > > > know what the point of providing a function with three args would be,
 > > > unless it is possible to replace the handler that does the callback.
 > >
 > > welcome to sunrpc :(
 > >
 > > If you can figure out how to make it fit together without function
 > > pointer casts, please do.
 > I think the problem there would be that the prototypes of common functions
 > are documented, so changing that is rewriting the whole API, a whole other
 > deal.

Well, right, the prototype has xdrproc_t, all these guys passing
something else are just plain wrong :-)

(Since the amount of new code appearing using SunRPC is negligible,
and the amount of it that's third party is small, and since it's all
so nasty, I'd say that almost any arbitrary changes to make it cleaner
are defensible.)

I'm guessing that most of the functions that aren't (XDR *, const void *)
are things like (XDR *, const struct foo *), right? Which can be fixed to 
be formally type-safe with only minor adjustments.

I'm not going to demand that you do it, but it would be nice if it
were easily possible to track down the places needing adjustment
later. I suppose grepping the tree for (xdrproc_t) would be sufficient

I guess what I don't really like is putting casts inside the clnt_call

David A. Holland

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index