Re: [PATCH] microMIPS support

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Joel Brobecker wrote:

> >  Actually I keep getting confused about the style expected for aggregate 
> > types, especially in the context of initialisers.  So for example is this 
> > correct:
> [...]
> > or should that be written yet differently?  What if that's defined at the 
> > file scope:
> 
> Yeah, I am not sure what the proper kosher style would be in this case,
> or if this has been discussed and decided, but I would tend to say that
> the same style should be used regardless of scope.

 I am unconvinced.  We make an exception for global functions and do not 
indent their brackets.  However we do indent nested (local) functions.  
Have a look at elf/dl-deps.c in glibc sources (that follow the same style 
that we do) for an example -- there's a nested "preload" function in 
"_dl_map_object_deps" and its indented just as any other entity would be 
(personally I would find an unindented nested block confusing).

 So why should we treat all the other kinds of entities differently?  
What's the rationale?  I think all file-scope entities look better 
unindented, not just functions.

 That's my personal view anyway, feel free to differ.  Though I have to 
admit my view is not particularly strong here and then TBH file-scope 
structures in the glibc source referred above are indeed indented, so I am 
not going to argue either way if there's any doubt.

  Maciej