On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
> > > wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
> > > the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:51:47PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> if (foo)
> > >> bar();
> > >> baz();
> > >> one();
> > >>
> > >
> > > detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug
> > > because the
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:51:47PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if (foo)
bar();
baz();
one();
detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug
because the intent is often to have bar() and
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is more useful operating on an entire file, so the script can see
> all the context.
>
> A 'gcc -Windentation-contradicts-codeflow -Werror' would be nice.
I had a tool long ago on the Amiga which did exactly that. It double checked
that the
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:57:49 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > there's "checkpatch --file" for complete files, so it can see the full
> > context if the user passes it in.
>
> This is new, I guess?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file
>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
there's "checkpatch --file" for complete files, so it can see the full
context if the user passes it in.
This is new, I guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file
drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
Unknown option: file
Such an option would be quite useful,
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>if (foo)
> >>bar();
> >>baz();
> >>one();
> >>
> >
> > detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug
> > because the intent is often to have bar() and baz() in the conditional
> > block.
>
>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
>>> wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
>>> the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
>>> _except_
* Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > + SD_BALANCE_FORK |
> > > + SD_BALANCE_EXEC |
> > > + SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER |
> > > + SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES);
> > > +
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 08:25:21PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
> >
> > there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
> > reappeared:
> >
> > WARNING:
* Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
> > wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
> > the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
> > _except_ the only safe single-line
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
>
> there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
> reappeared:
>
> WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
> #5710: FILE:
latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
reappeared:
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#5710: FILE: sched.c:5710:
+ if (parent->groups == parent->groups->next) {
+
latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
reappeared:
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#5710: FILE: sched.c:5710:
+ if (parent-groups == parent-groups-next) {
+
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
reappeared:
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#5710: FILE: sched.c:5710:
* Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
_except_ the only safe single-line statement:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 08:25:21PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning
reappeared:
WARNING: braces {} are
* Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SD_BALANCE_FORK |
+ SD_BALANCE_EXEC |
+ SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER |
+ SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES);
+ }
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if (foo)
bar();
baz();
one();
detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug
because the intent is often to have bar() and baz() in the conditional
block.
This is more useful
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
_except_ the only safe
Ingo Molnar wrote:
there's checkpatch --file for complete files, so it can see the full
context if the user passes it in.
This is new, I guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file
drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
Unknown option: file
Such an option would be quite useful, but
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:57:49 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
there's checkpatch --file for complete files, so it can see the full
context if the user passes it in.
This is new, I guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file
drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is more useful operating on an entire file, so the script can see
all the context.
A 'gcc -Windentation-contradicts-codeflow -Werror' would be nice.
I had a tool long ago on the Amiga which did exactly that. It double checked
that the indentation
24 matches
Mail list logo
