On Feb  7, 2018, Rical Jasan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 02/06/2018 08:26 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Some uncertainly has come up during GCC patch review.

> A reference to the debate would be nice.

I didn't want to pollute the conversation about GNU standards with the
position of any one person involved.  It's just not relevant for the
documentation of what the GNU general recommendation is.

Individual projects can have their own narrower rules, if they find it
important, but first we have to find what the general guidance is.


> How does the GCC codebase typically handle such formatting?

There are examples that some consider improper, and that's what started
the conversation and brought me here.


On Feb  7, 2018, [email protected] (Alfred M. Szmidt) wrote:

>        return rup->ru_utime.tv_sec*1000 + rup->ru_utime.tv_usec/1000
>          + rup->ru_stime.tv_sec*1000 + rup->ru_stime.tv_usec/1000;

> I'd consider this improper, since it puts the operator where it
> doesn't belong

Why does not belong IYHO?

>    If any of them are, the addition, to the standard document, of the
>    snippet and rationale would be appreciated.

> I am not sure if an addition is needed, the above example fit with the
> proper and improper examples from the standard document.

So far, what has become clear is that there is disagreement as to at
least one of the cases, and that one happens to be the very contentious
point in the GCC community, which suggests to me we could use
clarification in the GNU standard.

Now, given that there is disagreement even here, I wonder if this is the
proper forum to determine what the fix to the recommendation should be.
Should I take it elsewhere, or is this the right forum to debate what
the GNU general recommendation should be?

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Reply via email to