On 2014-05-30 00:14, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 5/29/2014 3:47 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Any guidance on whether we should have a style rule about CPP
>directives? Mainly this is for #ifdef #endif guards for conditional
>code compilation. There are two options based on what exists in the
>cpukit today:
>
>1) Preprocessor directives within indented code should be one nesting
>level outside of the affected code.
>2) Preprocessor directives within indented code should not be indented.
>
>You can see an example of both, e.g. at
>cpukit/score/src/threaddispatch.c:111-132 just to pick one.
(1) is historical
(2) is newer
Personally, I lean to (2) and may be the guilty party for much of that code.
Older C tended to always put the cpp #directives in the 1st column. Whether
there were broken compilers or we just followed K&R style, I don't know.
I think style (2) treats the conditionals like C logic and following the
same rules
seems to help.
But this is one of those things where I am sure I wrote in style (1) for
years
and somewhere was exposed to (2) and started using it.
I am happy with both variants.
FWIW The GNU Ada run-time for RTEMS should go back to the default of using
POSIX keys. That will fix it for SMP and eliminate some of this code.
Since the Ada self context is part of Thread_Control you can also use something
like __getreent().
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
