Amar Takhar commented on a discussion on cpukit/rtems/src/taskconstruct.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/237#note_112468 > static User_extensions_Control _RTEMS_tasks_User_extensions = { > .Callouts = { > #if defined( RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSING ) > - .thread_terminate = _RTEMS_tasks_Terminate_extension, > + .thread_terminate = _RTEMS_tasks_Terminate_extension, > #endif > - .thread_start = _RTEMS_tasks_Start_extension, > - .thread_restart = _RTEMS_tasks_Start_extension > + .thread_start = _RTEMS_tasks_Start_extension, > + .thread_restart = _RTEMS_tasks_Start_extension @sebhub in this case I disagree because in that file most of the changes are fantastic I would not throw that away for a couple of bad indents. If the formatter is 98%+ correct and is more importantly, consistent then I'm fine with that. We have spent far more effort trying to do it by hand. I would rather it become a problem we have to deal with -- which we can do by disabling the option than pre-empting ourselves by thinking it will be bad without trying. It's fine that others have tried it we should give our shot, too. Again, I'm only advocating for this because if it's a problem we can disable it but I am absolutely for doing this in the first pass. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/237#note_112468 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
