This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH/coding style] clarify pointers and operators
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>, richard dot sandiford at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:37:27 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/coding style] clarify pointers and operators
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:04:56AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Martin Sebor <email@example.com> writes:
> > Martin suggested we update the Coding Conventions to describe
> > the expected style for function declarations with a pointer
> > return types, and for overloaded operators. Below is the patch.
> > As an aside, regarding the space convention in casts: a crude
> > grep search yields about 10,000 instances of the "(type)x" kinds
> > of casts in GCC sources and 40,000 of the preferred "(type) x"
> > style with the space. That's a consistency of only 80%. Is
> > it worth documenting a preference for a convention that's so
> > inconsistently followed?
> Just to be sure, does that grep include things like the go frontend
> and its GCC interface, which deliberately don't follow GNU conventions?
> A crude grep for me gives 92% consistency in gcc/* itself (excluding
> subdirectories), although that's still disappointingly low...
$ grep '([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*)[a-zA-Z_]' *.[ch]|wc -l
$ grep '([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*) ' *.[ch]|wc -l
(that's gcc/*.[ch]). About 1.6%, not so terrible.
$ grep '([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\( \?\*\+\)\?)[a-zA-Z_]' *.[ch]|wc -l
$ grep '([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\( \?\*\+\)\?) ' *.[ch]|wc -l
With pointer casts it is worse, but still only about 2.2%.
Files other than *.[ch] will probably have many more false hits?