Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes: > Sure, I can do that, but shouldn't this convention be documented in > SubmittingPatches?
People must have learned this by imitating what senior contributors send to the list, but the "[Subject] area: title" thing does not appear in that document. I agree it should (patches welcome). >> I saw quite a few decl-after-statement in new code. Please fix >> them. > > Again, I can do that no problem, but again this convention is > undocumented and I am not psychic. Yeah, when there is no code that does decl-after-statement, with the "imitate surrounding code" rule alone, I agree that it is a bit hard to tell we do not allow it (as opposed to seeing a construct is often used and assuming that the construct is permitted, which is much easier). > I see that a patch was provided > 5 years ago to document this, but was apparently never pulled in: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/47843/focus=48015 I just read SubmittingPatches again and looked for 1a as found in that patch, and it is there. > I also see in the same thread that a patch to add > -Wdeclaration-after-statement to CFLAGS was also offered but never > pulled in, There is no guarantee your CC would understand it; you don't even know if it is a gcc in the first place. > I'm also curious to know why this convention exists. Are people > really still compiling git with compilers which don't support C99? See 6d62c98 (Makefile: Change the default compiler from "gcc" to "cc", 2011-12-20). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html