This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [LTO] PATCH: builtins.c/CALL_EXPR patch, take 2


On Monday 03 July 2006 00:24, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> But, is there really a formal
> written policy against inserting parentheses that are not syntactically
> necessary?  (The only thing the GNU Coding Standards document says about it
> is a suggestion to *add* them to help Emacs indent things better.)

For reference: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting

The coding standards also ask you to use parenthesis to clarify precedence.
In you case it's pretty clear what the condition says without the parens.

> Even if 
> the parentheses are not strictly necessary for machine parsing of the
> expression, they make it easier for *humans* to parse the code by providing
> visual cues about the grouping of the subexpressions.

It's just not usually done anywhere else in GCC, so the de facto standard
is without the parens.  I guess it's something a developer has to decide
on a per case basis.  And if you're interested in my $0.02, I agree with
Roger in this case.

Gr.
Steven



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