Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:55:00AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: >> Jeff reminded me in a code review the other day that GCC does >> have a guideline for defining POD structs with the keyword >> "struct" and classes with ctors/dtors using "class": >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Struct_Use >> >> I quickly prototyped a warning to see how closely GCC follows >> this convention. The result shows that out of just under 800 >> structs and classes defined in GCC sources some 200 use >> the keyword 'struct' despite having a ctor or dtor, or about >> 25%. So as is the case with most other conventions, without >> a tool to help remind us they exist they are unlikely to be >> followed with enough consistency to be worth putting in place >> to begin with. > > The goal is not to have the rules adhered to. The goal is to have > a more readable / maintainable / etc. codebase.
IMO it's a shame we don't follow that attitude for changelogs, where apparently the number of spaces between the name and the email address is of vital importance :-) Too often a new contributor's first taste of GCC is a slew of comments about things like that. But surely it's a valid point that we're not following our own conventions on the C++ usage. I miss how consistent the codebase was in the C days... That can be fixed by changing the conventions if we no longer think they're a good idea. But if someone's willing to change the codebase to follow (one of) the coventions instead, and willing to add a warning to keep things that way, then that sounds like a really good thing. Especially when it's a common convention that others might want a warning for too. And I don't think the current state of the struct/class tags is really a result of making the codebase more maintainable. I get the feeling it just kind-of happened. ISTM we're trying too hard to find a reason not to clean this up. (Just replying because I know Martin has been on the receiving end of a lot of review comments about patches that didn't follow the conventions. Not necessarily any more than anyone else, and from what I remember the comments were accurate. But after all that, I don't think it's fair to say that the conventions don't really matter.) Thanks, Richard
