a bit more cleanup

src/TODO.txt

@@ -3,14 +3,12 @@ Current list of things to fix/add to iperf 3.0
 
 -  test -T option on server
 -  separate iperf_api.c into iperf_client.c and iperf_utils.c 
--  verify placment of all timing calls and total_bytes_sent computations
 -  look for 'XXX' in code and address
 -  much better/standard error handling throughout
 -  better packaging/makefile, README, LICENCE, etc files
--  currently several places in the code where a linked list must be scanned to find the end.
-      It would be better to store a pointer to the last element.
--  reedd -Z option (linux tcp congestion control algoritm)
+-  readd -Z option (linux tcp congestion control algoritm)
 -  readd flog to set IP_TOS (-S)
+-  add verbose and debug options
 -  finish/fix receive_result_from_server()
       - should this be called for TCP too, or only UDP (currently its both,
               but I think it should be UDP only, or maybe a command line option for TCP
@@ -20,7 +18,6 @@ Current list of things to fix/add to iperf 3.0
        add TCP control socket?
        use clock_nanosleep() for more accurate timing in Linux?
 	(http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/clock_nanosleep.2.html)
--  add verbose and debug options
 -  add human readable vs machine readable output mode
      (my idea on this is that "human readable" = compatable with old iperf,
      and that "machine readable is all name=value pairs -blt )

src/iperf.h

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct iperf_settings
     iperf_size_t bytes;		/* -n option */
     char      unit_format;	/* -f */
     /* XXX: not sure about this design: everything else is this struct is static state, 
-	but the last 2 are dymanic state. Should they be in iperf_stream instead? */
+	but the last 2 are dynamic state. Should they be in iperf_stream instead? */
     int       state;		/* This is state of a stream/test */
     char      cookie[COOKIE_SIZE];	
 };
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct iperf_stream
     /* configurable members */
     int       local_port;
     int       remote_port;
-	/* XXX: is this just a pointer to the same struct in iperf_test? if not, 
+	/* XXX: is settings just a pointer to the same struct in iperf_test? if not, 
 		should it be? */
     struct iperf_settings *settings;	/* pointer to structure settings */
 

src/iperf_api.c

@@ -446,12 +446,6 @@ iperf_stats_callback(struct iperf_test * test)
 	else
 	    temp.bytes_transferred = rp->bytes_received;
      
-        if (temp.bytes_transferred == 0)
-        {
-	    printf("iperf_stats_callback: should not be here, no data read \n");
-	    exit(-1);  /* XXX: clean up later once understand why this happends */
-        }
-
 	ip = sp->result->interval_results;
 	/* result->end_time contains timestamp of previous interval */
         if ( ip != NULL ) /* not the 1st interval */
@@ -573,12 +567,14 @@ iperf_reporter_callback(struct iperf_test * test)
 		    sprintf(message, report_bw_format, sp->socket, start_time, end_time, ubuf, nbuf);
                     //printf("iperf_reporter_callback 2: message = %s \n", message);
 		    safe_strcat(message_final, message);
+#if defined(linux) || defined(__FreeBSD__)
 		    if (test->tcp_info)
 		    {
 			printf("Final TCP_INFO results: \n");
 			build_tcpinfo_message(ip, message);
 			safe_strcat(message_final, message);
 		    }
+#endif
 		} else
 		{		/* UDP mode */
 		    sprintf(message, report_bw_jitter_loss_format, sp->socket, start_time,
@@ -659,11 +655,13 @@ print_interval_results(struct iperf_test * test, struct iperf_stream * sp, char
     //printf("print_interval_results 1: message = %s \n", message);
     safe_strcat(message_final, message);
 
+#if defined(linux) || defined(__FreeBSD__)
     if (test->tcp_info)
     {
 	build_tcpinfo_message(ir, message);
 	safe_strcat(message_final, message);
     }
+#endif
     //printf("reporter_callback: built interval string: %s \n", message_final);
     free(message);
     return message_final;
@@ -680,6 +678,7 @@ safe_strcat(char *s1, char *s2)
     {
 	printf("Error: results string too long \n");
 	exit(-1);		/* XXX: should return an error instead! */
+	/* but code that calls this needs to check for error first */
 	//return -1;
     }
 }