The rule use to be: long lines were ok in arch header files.
No, that was never a rule. We did use -m so that we didn't have to do
so much work. But that was just cutting corners; we (meaning us
individually) allowed a little slop in line length just because we
didn't want to do the work. There has never been a policy that said
long lines were okay anywhere. Since the PR checks were added early in
March, there has not been any exceptions for long lines.
Lone lines due to comments to the right of a #define are not reported at
all by nxstyle currently. But that is a bug; it is missing a check and
is not detected. But if we fixed that now it would cost it a lot of
work. In the future we will require that.
I have noticed that things are getting better. When we first tightened
up the nxstyle checks ... when the PR checks were first implemented, it
was hell. But I can see the slow improvement. There are still a few
difficult files in the system, but most changes do not require as much
stylistic repair as they did in March.
When I made nxstyle output error parsable output, that was a warning not an
error.
How is one violation of the coding standard a warning and another an
error? They are all errors; any deviation from the coding standard is
an error. There is no meaningful interpretation of a warning when we
are talking about violations of a specification. Something conforms to
the specification or it does not. There is no permission to have long
lines.
Errors and warnings do make since when coming from the C compiler: C
syntax non-compliance is an error. C usage which is correct but
ambiguous or correct but dangerous would be flagged as a warning. C
warnings might be logic errors, but they are not C syntax errors. There
is no analogy to a warning in spec compliance.
Then we got to make it fit below the ruler.
That has always been required by the Coding standard. That has been
explicitly stated in the Coding Standard for many years. The only
difference is that we (correctly) removed the -m when the automated
style checks were in place last March.
Then we got to it better conform. So now I guess they are all errors.
Yes, the are all errors. Don't misinterpret anything labeled as a
warning. It is an error. The use of WARNING is always misleading.
