On 16 April 2015 at 15:50, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 16 April 2015 at 09:41, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 04/16/2015 04:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote: >> >>> We have an 80 char limit that is frequently an issue for strings and we >>> just accept that we ignore the warning. >>> >>> Allow split strings so that there is a valid alternative >>> Thus the following example becomes a legal alternative to the > 80 chars >>> warning. >>> >>> printf("\nThread %u (id=%d core=%d) had %u sync_failures" >>> " in %u iterations\n", thread_num, >>> ..... >>> >>> >> The reason to have an exception for printed strings length is to have >> them in one line to be searchable in a codebase. >> >> In this example grep'ing for 'sync_failures in' won't find this string. >> > The above format string would better be expressed as printf("\nThread %u (id=%d core=%d) had %u sync_failures in " "%u iterations\n", thread_num, E.g. break at a formatting directive. But grepping using regular expressions ("had .* sync_failures in .* iterations") would still fail. So allowing for lines (with strings) longer than 80 chars is preferable. > As with Google you just take a portion of the string if you really have an > issue. > > I rarely include syntactic elements in a search, in the same way that if > you search for this string verbatim with he specific thread id, core and > number of failures set in the actual string seen on stdout you would not > find the code either. > > -- > Mike Holmes > Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group > Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs > > > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
