On 05/06/15 11:04, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>>> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
>>>>
>>>> Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for
>>>> example:
>>>
>>> What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?
>>
>> Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
>> the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
>> cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
>> surroundng context, and/or line numbers.
>>
>> I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
>> patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.
>
> Oh wtf!
>
> That sounds like something that should be fixed in the tool, a fun
> little project for a dark winter night.
As a quick workaround, consider putting this in a .gitattributes file:
*.c diff=cpp
This will tell git diff to use the predefined regex for finding function
headers in c++ files for all C files as well. It differs from the
default C regex in that it tries to exclude visibility class labels
("protected:" etc) and therefore incidentally excludes all labels ;-)
Enjoy!
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
