Jeff Hostetler <[email protected]> writes:
>>> -+ for_each_builtin(j, tgt_j) {
>>> ++ for_each_builtin(j, tgt_j)
>>> ++ {
>>> + tgt_j->pfn_term();
>>> + }
>>
>> Our CodingGuidelines prefer the opening brace on the same line after
>> the if/for/while/struct/etc. statement, and even omitting the braces
>> if the if arm or loop body consists of a single statement. So
>> unfortunately a considerable part of this range diff goes in the wrong
>> direction.
>
> I know they do and I had them on the same line originally.
>
> Clang-format was complaining about every use of the for_each_builtin
> macro, so I changed them to be on the next line to quiet it.
Well, clang-format is wrong then ;-)
> I hesitate to remove braces around a statement adjacent to a
> for_each macro trick for the usual safety reasons.
Sorry, but what's "usual safety reasons"? Isn't a macro that
requires {} in order to work correctly simply broken?
I see (from a previous iteration---sorry, but I haven't caught up)
#define for_each_builtin(j, tgt_j) \
for (j = 0, tgt_j = tr2_tgt_builtins[j]; \
tgt_j; \
j++, tgt_j = tr2_tgt_builtins[j])
and I do not think
for (j = 0, tgt_j = ...; tgt_j; j++, tgt_j = ...)
statement;
is unsafe (iow, your macro is not broken).
Puzzled.
