Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

The interim workflow is not up for approval.  The agreement is that I will work using basically the old work flow until the new workflow is in place.  If that changes, then the agreement is null and void and I am out of the picture.  Your choice. If any one wants to contribute to the work flow

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM David Sidrane wrote: > > Yes. labeled "interim work flow", and should it be voted on prior to use, > (but at this point It is rather moot) > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis > wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > Good question! > > > > I didn't cre

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Yes. labeled "interim work flow", and should it be voted on prior to use, (but at this point It is rather moot) On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:26 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > Hi David, > > Good question! > > I didn't create it as an ASF wiki page because it is not official and > I think we need

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Hi David, Good question! I didn't create it as an ASF wiki page because it is not official and I think we need to focus on finishing the new workflow. But because we need to avoid the chaos I decided to write it on some other place and eventually it could be useful for other people until we get t

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Given all the input from ASF mentors : Should this live on the ASF Nuttx servers, possibly labeled "interim work flow", and should it be voted on prior to use? On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > On Friday, January 3, 2020, Nathan Hartman > wrote: > >

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Hi Abdelatif, On 1/3/20, Abdelatif Guettouche wrote: > A little of topic... > @Alan PR32 is still in the repo and is ahead of master. Looks like you > didn't merge it. > BTW dev is also out of synch with master. All the PRs are getting > merged to master. > I just removed the pr32 branch. I thin

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:24 AM Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > > BTW dev is also out of synch with master. All the PRs are getting > > merged to master. > > dev is no longer being used. I would like to delete it. But I want to > make sure that no-one is use 'dev' before I do so. > > Trying to maintai

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

BTW dev is also out of synch with master. All the PRs are getting merged to master. dev is no longer being used.  I would like to delete it.  But I want to make sure that no-one is use 'dev' before I do so. Trying to maintain a dev branch in synchronization is nearly impossible.  It is be

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

A little of topic... @Alan PR32 is still in the repo and is ahead of master. Looks like you didn't merge it. BTW dev is also out of synch with master. All the PRs are getting merged to master. On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > > Hi Nathan, > > On Friday, January 3, 20

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Hi Nathan, On Friday, January 3, 2020, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:54 PM Nathan Hartman > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:31 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: >> >>> >>> > Ok. I'm okay with that. >>> >>> Perhaps you could merge this for me: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/inc

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On 1/3/2020 7:46 AM, Nathan Hartman wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:23 AM Xiang Xiao wrote: 3.It make the code a little bit clean(e.g. memcpy... vs. (void)memcpy...) 4.The return value from many function don't indicate the pass/fail(e.g. memcpy return destination), it is reasonable to ignore i

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:23 AM Xiang Xiao wrote: > > I made this change just because the usage is inconsistent through out the > code base. the choice to remove the cast, not to add the cast, because: > 1.It is more easier to remove the cast by command > 2.This change is smaller than to add the c

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:54 PM Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:31 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > >> >> > Ok. I'm okay with that. >> >> Perhaps you could merge this for me: >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/31 > > Looks like Alan beat me to it. Nathan

What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Friday, January 3, 2020, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > Is that because there are more places that don't do it than places that do? >> > Yes.. and I think just a matter of personal preference. > >> Because it seems to me that the right thing to do is to leave compliant >> code alone and bring non-com

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:31 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > Ok. I'm okay with that. > > Perhaps you could merge this for me: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/31 > > I cannot merge my own contributions. This is a trivial change to the > the coding standard; Nothing functional is c

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Ok. I'm okay with that. We do have to avoid making this a habit, however.  In this case, we are talking about an obscure and little know requirement that is not critical to the overall coding standard. However, I take responsibility for the faux pas, I forget that it was in the coding stand

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Ok. I'm okay with that. Perhaps you could merge this for me: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/31 I cannot merge my own contributions.  This is a trivial change to the the coding standard; Nothing functional is changed.  In this case, you should just be able to merge the chan

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:59 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > Is that because there are more places that don't do it than places that > do? > Yes.. and I think just a matter of personal preference. > > Because it seems to me that the right thing to do is to leave compliant > > code alone and bring non

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

Is that because there are more places that don't do it than places that do? Yes.. and I think just a matter of personal preference. Because it seems to me that the right thing to do is to leave compliant code alone and bring non-compliant code into compliance with the standard, otherwise ther

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:47 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > At this point, I think we have no real option but to change the coding > standard to match the code as-is. Is that because there are more places that don't do it than places that do? Because it seems to me that the right thing to do is to le

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

At this point, I think we have no real option but to change the coding standard to match the code as-is. On 1/2/2020 8:27 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote: What is the reason for the recent commits to nuttx and apps that removed the (void) for ignored return values in thousands of places? It is also

Re: What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

What is the reason for the recent commits to nuttx and apps that removed the (void) for ignored return values in thousands of places? It is also a coding style issue because the coding style requires (void) if you choose to ignore the return value from a function http://nuttx.org/Documentat

What happened to (void) for ignored return values?

What is the reason for the recent commits to nuttx and apps that removed the (void) for ignored return values in thousands of places? Nathan