From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
Milica Matic <milica.matic@htecgroup.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] Apply coding guidelines
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:40:45 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2502231611020.65342@angie.orcam.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250219162124.62880782@f41-zbm-amd>
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> > Format mips-tdep.c code as described on links:
> > https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards
> > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Comments
> > ---
> > gdb/mips-tdep.c | 395 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)
>
> This is okay.
Kevin, thank you for your review.
However I wasn't happy with some aspects of the proposal, so I have split
it into pieces by the category, making individual commits self-contained,
easy to navigate and consequently obvious to the reader. I'll appreciate
if any future changes of this kind made to the MIPS backend follow this
pattern.
Strictly speaking I reckon our new-line rule for block comments preceding
variable definitions only applies to ones outside functions, but I don't
care either way, so I have retained these changes. I also made a couple
of small adjustments which were missed around the places poked at.
Unlike adding or removing new lines there is ongoing cost to code changes
made as it affects `git blame' output. Therefore I have applied changes
to places with actual style issues, but I decided against making block
statements out of comments along with the single statements that follow
them each in conditional blocks. I think the benefit outweighs the
ongoing cost of their appearance in `git blame' output that requires an
extra step to bypass this noise. I have no objection to using this style
of course with new code or code that has to be otherwise changed anyway.
Last but not least I can see no reason to merge adjacent comments into
single block comments. There is no such requirement and there was often a
reason to do it this way, such as to emphasize separation. So I have not
applied this part either.
I have adjusted commit headings and descriptions accordingly and posted
the changes applied for easier reference.
Milica, thank you for your contribution.
Maciej
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-23 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-19 13:01 [PATCH 0/2] gdb: mips: Add MIPSR6 support Milica Matic
2025-02-19 13:01 ` [PATCH v12 " Milica Matic
2025-02-19 13:01 ` [PATCH v12 1/2] Apply coding guidelines Milica Matic
2025-02-19 23:21 ` Kevin Buettner
2025-02-23 16:40 ` Maciej W. Rozycki [this message]
2025-02-19 13:01 ` [PATCH v12 2/2] gdb: mips: Add MIPSR6 support Milica Matic
2025-02-25 22:35 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-03-02 0:17 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-03-28 17:09 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.2502231611020.65342@angie.orcam.me.uk \
--to=macro@orcam.me.uk \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=milica.matic@htecgroup.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox