Chris Johns commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1122#note_146465 @sebhub we do not have `RTEMS_QUAL` in our code base. I see no point in debating the merits of a format change in relation to something I have not seen, has not been discuss or accepted. We started down a path of bring formatting of sources with Python with you back when qual effort start, then C after a couple years getting `clang-format` modified so I see no reason why we need to make an exception here. I have no visibility on the paths you may or may not take. Without a clear and accurate plan it is difficult to understand and estimate the impact this or any other change may have. Currently the introduction of anything like `RTEMS_QUAL` that adds another conditional is a over my threshold tolerance. I am still to decide on what happens with `RTEMS_DEBUG` as it is. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1122#note_146465 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
