Privacy and Security Notice

Archived Messages for CDEV_1997@cebaf.gov: Re: GDD and cdevData library merge

Re: GDD and cdevData library merge

Jeff Hill (johill@lanl.gov)
Fri, 07 Feb 1997 10:48:28 -0700

Walt Akers wrote:
>
> Subject:
>
> Jeff had mentioned that he prefered to use an unsigned for the
> data tags - the reason that we chose to use a signed integer was
> to allow us to use negative tag numbers internally when retagging
> a cdevData object from one process's tag table to another process's
> tag table...
>
> By using signed integers I was able to remap the tags without
> performing any copies or reallocations. I'd rather keep this
> feature if possible.
>

I will not be going catatonic if we end up with a signed number
for the tag (application type) in the interface. Nevertheless one
wonders if the external API could use an unsigned number and the
internal implementation could use something else. Possibly an
unsigned number and a flag - or even a signed number - I am not sure
what occurs when you remap the tags (that requires signed numbers).

Jeff

--
______________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey O. Hill Internet johill@lanl.gov
LANL MS H820 Voice 505 665 1831
Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA FAX 505 665 5107