Earlier the debates were pure philosophy. We now have a substantial body of code and that "sleek and stylish" 80-char straightjacket is a lot less comfortable for daily wear than it may have looked "on the rack" before we bought it.
Even a bump to 85 would be a welcome relief. 100 or 132 would be equally arbitrary and I'd have no problem with removing the limit altogether and simply relying on the consensus of reviewers as to when lines are "too long". The point is that there's no real justification for keeping 80 other than "well, Linux does it that way". But ODP is not Linux and we've already abandoned Linux''s ban on typedefs so obviously we're not constrained by what Linux does. Bill On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> wrote: > VT100 forever! > However 132 chars per line was supported even back then. I guess only > PC text consoles are limited to 80 chars. > > > On 10 December 2014 at 17:58, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Rather than having a list of "privileged" code that gets special > exceptions, > > why not just increase the checkpatch line length limit beyond the > arbitrary > > 80-char limit? We're not coding on punch cards any more. :) > > > > Raising the limit to say 100 chars would eliminate the vast majority of > > these spurious issues. I know I've had to torture the buffer code in > > several places to comply with this procrustean "standard". > > > > Bill > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Agreed, this is one of the exceptions. > >> > >> On 10 December 2014 at 04:22, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10 December 2014 at 09:13, Anders Roxell <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > On 2014-12-09 17:56, Mike Holmes wrote: > >>> >> Has checkpatch issues > >>> >> > >>> >> Using patch: > >>> >> > /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox > >>> >> git am > >>> >> > /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox > >>> >> Patch applied, building... > >>> >> WARNING: line over 80 characters > >>> >> #238: FILE: test/validation/odp_timer.c:185: > >>> >> + CU_FAIL("Failed to set timer (tooearly/toolate)"); > >>> >> > >>> >> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 359 lines checked > >>> >> > >>> >> NOTE: Ignored message types: DEPRECATED_VARIABLE NEW_TYPEDEFS > >>> >> > >>> >> 0001-test-odp_timer.h-cunit-test.patch has style problems, please > >>> >> review. > >>> > > >>> > Do we want to split up this printout? > >>> No. > >>> > >>> > If you're not familiar with the code and you run the validation tests > >>> > and got this failure printed out. I would grep for that failure > message > >>> > (the string) in the code too see how I got there. > >>> Exactly. > >>> > >>> > And if we split this string up into multiple rows just to make > >>> > check-patch happy it will make it harder to search after the failure > >>> > message then right? > >>> Correct. > >>> And I even think checkpatch for this reason will complain if you split > >>> the string. > >>> > >>> -- Ola > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Cheers, > >>> > Anders > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mike Holmes > >> Linaro Sr Technical Manager > >> LNG - ODP > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> lng-odp mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
