On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 19:21 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > I don't really care what style a large block of code
> > uses. I care that it mostly has the same form.
> Same form?? The sizeof operator has two forms depending on whether it's a
> unary
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> sizeof without parenthesis is an abomination, and should never be used.
>
> Sure, you don't need to have the parenthesis (except when you do - for
> actual types), but it's a parsing oddity.
>
> The sane solution is: just add the f*cking parenthesis,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> This doesn't suggest parenthesis for sizeof at all times
sizeof without parenthesis is an abomination, and should never be used.
Sure, you don't need to have the parenthesis (except when you do - for
actual types), but it's a parsing
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
> I don't really care what style a large block of code
> uses. I care that it mostly has the same form.
>
Same form?? The sizeof operator has two forms depending on whether it's a
unary expression or a type as specified by the standard.
The issue here
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 18:50 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > CodingStyle already does suggest parenthesis around sizeof
> >
> > 3.1: Spaces
> >
> > Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on
> > function-versus-keyword usage. Use a
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
> CodingStyle already does suggest parenthesis around sizeof
>
> 3.1: Spaces
>
> Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on
> function-versus-keyword usage. Use a space after (most) keywords. The
> notable exceptions are sizeof, typeof,
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:47 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
> > > checkpatch.pl.
> >
> > Not just my opinion.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
> >
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
> > So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
> > checkpatch.pl.
>
> Not just my opinion.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
>
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:08:50
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:55 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
> checkpatch.pl.
Not just my opinion.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:08:50
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
> Huh? Maybe I misunderstand you.
>
> $ cat sizeof.c
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> struct foo {
> int bar[20];
> char *baz;
> };
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> struct foo bar;
> struct foo *baz;
>
>
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:23 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>
> > From: Joe Perches
> > Subject: checkpatch: Add acheck for use of sizeof without parenthesis
> >
> > Kernel style uses parenthesis around sizeof.
> >
>
> Nack, there's a
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> Subject: checkpatch: Add acheck for use of sizeof without parenthesis
>
> Kernel style uses parenthesis around sizeof.
>
Nack, there's a difference between "sizeof *task" and
"sizeof(struct task_struct)". The former
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
From: Joe Perches j...@perches.com
Subject: checkpatch: Add acheck for use of sizeof without parenthesis
Kernel style uses parenthesis around sizeof.
Nack, there's a difference between sizeof *task and
sizeof(struct task_struct). The
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:23 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
From: Joe Perches j...@perches.com
Subject: checkpatch: Add acheck for use of sizeof without parenthesis
Kernel style uses parenthesis around sizeof.
Nack, there's a
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
Huh? Maybe I misunderstand you.
$ cat sizeof.c
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include strings.h
struct foo {
int bar[20];
char *baz;
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct foo bar;
struct foo *baz;
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:55 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
checkpatch.pl.
Not just my opinion.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:08:50
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
checkpatch.pl.
Not just my opinion.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:08:50 -0800
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:47 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
So, nack, don't start enforcing your own coding style and preferences in
checkpatch.pl.
Not just my opinion.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/23/138
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
CodingStyle already does suggest parenthesis around sizeof
3.1: Spaces
Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on
function-versus-keyword usage. Use a space after (most) keywords. The
notable exceptions are sizeof, typeof, alignof,
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 18:50 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
CodingStyle already does suggest parenthesis around sizeof
3.1: Spaces
Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on
function-versus-keyword usage. Use a space after (most)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't really care what style a large block of code
uses. I care that it mostly has the same form.
Same form?? The sizeof operator has two forms depending on whether it's a
unary expression or a type as specified by the standard.
The issue here is
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Rientjes rient...@google.com wrote:
This doesn't suggest parenthesis for sizeof at all times
sizeof without parenthesis is an abomination, and should never be used.
Sure, you don't need to have the parenthesis (except when you do - for
actual types), but
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
sizeof without parenthesis is an abomination, and should never be used.
Sure, you don't need to have the parenthesis (except when you do - for
actual types), but it's a parsing oddity.
The sane solution is: just add the f*cking parenthesis, and
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 19:21 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
I don't really care what style a large block of code
uses. I care that it mostly has the same form.
Same form?? The sizeof operator has two forms depending on whether it's a
unary
24 matches
Mail list logo
