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

[Jani Monoses]

For some reason the spamfilters on sics.se ate this mail 4 times
but since it's an answer to Florian I'll post it here again.


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.
As you said it's not really bad but I don't think it's good either.
That's why I'd like those in arch specific places.
Your primary reason is ease of maintenance I suppose.Well now with MSVC stuff
in core files it's harder for others to maintain their code.I am sure going to 
delete
those includes from the ecos port because they will confuse those which only 
look at ecos code.
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.
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?
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?

Jani.
> 
> Packing all structs is a problem, because all libraries you include after
> that also need to pack all structs, including the windows libraries. So
> this is not an option. It's also not really bad, cause you don't have to
> use includes for packing anymore, as Leon added an ifdef around them. If
> you know a better solution which works, then you are welcome to post it,
> but till then this has to do it.
> 
> Regards,
> Florian
> 
> 
> 
> [This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]