| Title: | DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT. |
| Notice: | Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187 |
| Moderator: | TAEC::BEROUD |
| Created: | Mon Aug 21 1989 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 6497 |
| Total number of notes: | 27359 |
This note is cross posted in the MCC and DMS notesfiles.
Regarding MCC MSL RECORDs, we've been enumerating the fields, ala:
TYPE CompatibleDLDEntry = 1006
RECORD
DLD Name = 1 : DLDName;
Predicted Load Time = 2 : BinRelTime;
END RECORD;
We've also handcrafted C enums to correspond to each field in the record:
/* Compatible DLDs entry */
typedef enum
{
MRM_MRS_K_COMPAT_DLD_NAME = 1,
MRM_MRS_K_COMPAT_DLD_PRED_LOAD_TIME
} compatible_dld_entry_e;
When we parse the AVL (I'm talking the Agent side), do we need to contend
with record fields that are out of order? I wonder if our C enumation work
is a waste of time.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4248.1 | RTM. | RACER::dave | Ahh, but fortunately, I have the key to escape reality. | Wed Dec 16 1992 12:44 | 6 |
Page 9-57 of the SRM states.... In the internal representation of the record, fields that are omitted at the user interface do not appear in the construction, and all fields must appear in the order that they appeared in the data type definition. | |||||