On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 5:22 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 11/9/20 1:32 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > I also think when doing this we should consider things that we do that > > we have since learned safety standards don't like such as single > statement > > if's without braces. I think we should have braces now. > > Are there open tools available that check for these things available? Does > this > have to be linked to changing the format? >
This should be an option. Requiring braces on all ifs isn't uncommon. I think the justification.for picking a format is being driven by having a tool to enforce it. I'd that's the sole factor, we can pick any old crappy format and meet that single requirement. I want to add the requirement that the format is not picked solely based on being something a tool already has a config file on. I am adding two requirements. (1) Clear identification of deltas from current style. If tools A and B miss by different amounts, I want us to.make a conscious decision on which to use. (2) Let's make sure we look at tool configuration options like always use.bracea that improve safety code reviews. I don't mind some.changes -- I just.want them to be consciously evaluated. --joel > > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel