This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH/coding style] clarify pointers and operators

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:04:56AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Martin Sebor <> 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...

I get:

$ 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?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]