On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 07:01 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> checkpatch isn't a perfect tool. Given how it's constructed,
> I doubt it ever could be.
Joe - I completely agree, this is why I'm not to concern about the
potential miss in the version I suggested.
Thanks,
Eilon
--
To unsubscribe from t
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:42 +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 15:41 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 23:19 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > > +# check for multiple blank lines, warn o
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 15:41 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 23:19 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > +# check for multiple blank lines, warn only on the second one in a block
> > > + if ($rawline =~ /^.\
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 23:19 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > +# check for multiple blank lines, warn only on the second one in a block
> > + if ($rawline =~ /^.\s*$/ &&
> > + $prevrawline =~ /^.\s*$/ &&
> > +
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> +# check for multiple blank lines, warn only on the second one in a block
> + if ($rawline =~ /^.\s*$/ &&
> + $prevrawline =~ /^.\s*$/ &&
> + $linenr != $last_blank_linenr + 1) {
> +
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:52 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > Changes from previous attempt:
> > - Use CHK instead of WARN
> > - Issue only one warning per empty lines block
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein
> > ---
> > scr
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 20:11 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >
> > Actually the version I sent should indeed cope with the deleted lines
> > regardless of order. It was cirtainly intended to.
>
> ... and I think I thought of a couple more corner cases neither solution
> will find. So I am going t
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:32:49PM +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:10:35PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
>
> > About the logic - true, if diff will show deleted lines after newly
> > added lines, some new double line segments will be missed. However, it
> > seems like fe
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:10:35PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> About the logic - true, if diff will show deleted lines after newly
> added lines, some new double line segments will be missed. However, it
> seems like few other things will break if diff will start acting out
> like that. The s
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:36 +0200, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:14:17PM +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> > > got it right, when a li
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:22:24PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:14 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> > > got it right, when a
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:14:17PM +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> > got it right, when a line is newly added, the next line can be:
> > a. another new line
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:14 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> > got it right, when a line is newly added, the next line can be:
> > a. another new line
> > b.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:10PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> I'm only testing the nextline if the current line is newly added. If I
> got it right, when a line is newly added, the next line can be:
> a. another new line
> b. existing line (provided for context)
> c. Does not exist since this
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 15:44 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:07:07PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:43 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >
> > > > > Also this fails if the fragment
> > > > > is at the top of the hunk emiting a perl warning.
> > >
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:07:07PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:43 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> > > > Also this fails if the fragment
> > > > is at the top of the hunk emiting a perl warning.
> > >
> > > I did not see this warning. Can you please share this exampl
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 14:43 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > > Also this fails if the fragment
> > > is at the top of the hunk emiting a perl warning.
> >
> > I did not see this warning. Can you please share this example? I tried
> > adding a couple of empty lines at the beginning of a file and i
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:27:04PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:52 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> Andy, thanks for reviewing this patch.
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > Changes from previous attempt:
> > > - Use CHK inst
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:52 +, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy, thanks for reviewing this patch.
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > Changes from previous attempt:
> > - Use CHK instead of WARN
> > - Issue only one warning per empty lines block
> >
> > Signed-o
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> Changes from previous attempt:
> - Use CHK instead of WARN
> - Issue only one warning per empty lines block
>
> Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl |8
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
Changes from previous attempt:
- Use CHK instead of WARN
- Issue only one warning per empty lines block
Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl |8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 21a9f5d..13d264f 10
21 matches
Mail list logo
