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] |
On 09/21/2016 08:37 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:On 09/21/2016 01:11 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:The patch uses "nul" instead of "null" throughout.Yes, that's intentional. NUL and null are alternate spellings for the same character. I went with nul to distinguish it from the null pointer and used all lowercase as per the GCC convention.Can you elaborate which guideline suggests spelling that in lowercase? It seems quite strange to me, especially given that the documentation added with the patch uses "NUL character" (which I believe to be a more common form), but then warnings use "nul" (without the "character" iiuc).
I don't know if there is a specific guideline that applies here, but it's my impression that conventionally GCC messages use lowercase letters. The only guideline I know about is in the GNU Coding Standard that calls for messages not to begin with capital letters (or end in a period; though now that I've checked more carefully there are a fair number of messages that ignore that suggestion). That said, if the lowercase nul is offensive it can certainly be changed to some other spelling (as can any of the other messages emitted by the pass). Martin PS Yes, the C and C++ standards refer to NUL as the null character. NUL is an abbreviation, used extensively (for example) by POSIX.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |