Hi, I stumbled upon the following: packet_footer reserved_bytes checksum u(32) [Note: in index packet, reserved_bytes comes before index_ptr] Wouldn't it be cleaner and easier to understand to just move reserved_bytes to the end of each header? Like: packet_header .... some_header (!=index) .... reserved_bytes packet_footer checksum u(32) and packet_header .... index .... reserved_bytes index_ptr f(64) packet_footer checksum u(32) This removes the need for the [Note:...]-exception for index packets and should result in the same bitstream as before. --Ivo
Hi On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Ivo wrote:
Hi,
I stumbled upon the following:
packet_footer reserved_bytes checksum u(32) [Note: in index packet, reserved_bytes comes before index_ptr]
Wouldn't it be cleaner and easier to understand to just move reserved_bytes to the end of each header? Like:
maybe and no objections, i suggest you wait 24h and if noone objects then commit it [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB In the past you could go to a library and read, borrow or copy any book Today you'd get arrested for mere telling someone where the library is
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:17:49AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Ivo wrote:
Hi,
I stumbled upon the following:
packet_footer reserved_bytes checksum u(32) [Note: in index packet, reserved_bytes comes before index_ptr]
Wouldn't it be cleaner and easier to understand to just move reserved_bytes to the end of each header? Like:
maybe and no objections, i suggest you wait 24h and if noone objects then commit it
Just one thing - reserved_bytes also applies for _unkown_ packets - see reserved_headers. - ods15
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 14:41, Oded Shimon wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:17:49AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:03:25AM +0100, Ivo wrote:
Hi,
I stumbled upon the following:
packet_footer reserved_bytes checksum u(32) [Note: in index packet, reserved_bytes comes before index_ptr]
Wouldn't it be cleaner and easier to understand to just move reserved_bytes to the end of each header? Like:
maybe and no objections, i suggest you wait 24h and if noone objects then commit it
Just one thing - reserved_bytes also applies for _unkown_ packets - see reserved_headers.
Yes. It's my intention to move reserved_bytes out of the footer for all packets, including those that are unknown at this moment. The lay-out of each packet (known and unknown) will be uniform this way. I'll place an extra reserved bytes between header and footer under reserved_headers. Thanks for mentioning that. I might have overlooked it otherwise :) --Ivo
participants (3)
-
Ivo -
Michael Niedermayer -
Oded Shimon