On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 15:13:49 +0200, thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote,
On Friday, 06 July 2018 15:07:28 CEST Eric Schott wrote:
Thomas Jarosch had issues with the patch because "it might cause
breakage for existing users of the lib."
Since my user set, while of a moderate size, is rather contained, I
implemented a "patched" libftd1 which had correct functionality.
Of course, the code compiled against my patch will not work with a
distribution supplied libftdi1.
At this point, I feel it would be beneficial to create a correctly
working library with an incremented major number with that fix.
At the same time, I recommend implementing API changes to minimize
breakage of user code with future versions (e.g., using a PIMPL
idiom for the context structure).
breaking existing apps is still my main concern.
What could work: Implement a new API function with the correct behavior
and keep the old one around. Existing applications continue to work
and we could put a big fat warning in the code to use the new API.
I have completed a patch which deprecates the purge functions and
introduces four correctly coded flush functions. I have chosen
function names which mimic the POSIX flush paradigm.
Jacob, the patch has a usage statement required by my employer (who
does not understand GPL. You may remove it when applying the patch.
This patch will be sent with my next email. Please let me know if
the lines are wrapped incorrectly by my mailer.
Eric.
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
