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

[Florian Schulze]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:29:40 +0200 Jani Monoses <address@hidden> wrote:

>  
> > > 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?
> That would be only 2 pragmas.

I meant where the include files should go.

> > 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.
> 
> It does not have to be easy just possible ;) .Does it not have an
> equivalent of gcc's
> -I ?

Yes, but it's a real bitch to set up, as it looks from the source file path
and not from the project base path. At least it seems to do it that way, I
didn't look that up in the documentation. It's just from my experience.

I would either vote to keep it the (not so really nice) way it's done now,
with defines and includes etc, or do it with includes with similar names as
the following. Those files would be included in the appropiate normal headers.

lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/lwip/dhcp_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/lwip/tcp_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/lwip/udp_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/netif/etharp_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/ipv4/lwip/icmp_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/ipv4/lwip/ip_s.h
lwip/src/arch/<archname>/include/ipv4/lwip/ipaddr_s.h*

(*) I omitted the underscore, or the filename would have been to long.

This way we get code duplication for the structures, but everything else
would be much cleaner. Maybe there should be one null/reference
architecture which always has the correct structure, but without any
packing stuff added.

What do you all think? Which one should be used? I start to think the last
one might really be better, as everything a new port has to think about
would be in the arch directorys.

Florian