Re: hardcoded maximum number of CFI chips - continued

["Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>]

On Mon, 21 July 2003 23:34:05 +0200, andrzej.mialkowski@inetia.pl wrote:
> 
> Yes, linked list is nice solution; I would also prefer it while writing a new 
> module. 
> Problem is that module exist and works pretty well. My priorities are time to 
> solution and risk of bug avoidance. You must agree that this is big difference 
> between changing number 8 to 10 and rewriting even only module initialization 
> to linked lists. 
> Compromise solution may be leave runtime structures as they are, and change 
> chips table to be 'reallocated' for instance in 4-16 chip increments. This 
> solution reduces to reasonable amount of copying and memory allocations (still 
> not critical during initialization), supports 'unlimited' number of chips and 
> may be implemented and tested in period of few hours. I can do this tomorrow.

In that case, why don't you just crank up the number from 8 to 16?  It
is the simpler solution to your problem at hand.

Jörn

-- 
Correctness comes second.
Features come third.
Performance comes last.
Maintainability is needed for all of them.