On 22 March 2018 at 19:12, Eric Blake wrote:
> Or if we don't patch the false negative, you can bypass checkpatch with an
> ugly hack:
>
> return 0 + (...) | (...);
>
> (I'm NOT going to do that bypass - it's too ugly for my taste)
Yeah, that's definitely not something we should be doing.
checkpa
On 03/22/2018 01:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 22 March 2018 at 17:57, wrote:
Checking PATCH 4/4: Remove unnecessary variables for function return value...
ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
#251: FILE: target/mips/dsp_helper.c:3281:
+return (temp[1] << 63) | (t
On 22 March 2018 at 17:57, wrote:
> Checking PATCH 4/4: Remove unnecessary variables for function return value...
> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> #251: FILE: target/mips/dsp_helper.c:3281:
> +return (temp[1] << 63) | (temp[0] >> 1);
This looks like a bug in
Hi,
This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
more information:
Type: series
Message-id: 20180322161226.29796-1-lviv...@redhat.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] coccinelle: re-run scripts from
scripts/coccinelle
=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
BASE=ba
