On 15/11/2019 17.15, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 16:08, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/11/2019 16.54, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 15:10, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
>>>> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine,
>>>> X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(machine);
>>>> MemoryRegion *system_memory = get_system_memory();
>>>> MemoryRegion *system_io = get_system_io();
>>>> - int i;
>>>> PCIBus *pci_bus;
>>>> ISABus *isa_bus;
>>>> PCII440FXState *i440fx_state;
>>>> @@ -253,7 +252,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine,
>>>> }
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_IDE_ISA
>>>> else {
>>>> - for(i = 0; i < MAX_IDE_BUS; i++) {
>>>> + for (int i = 0; i < MAX_IDE_BUS; i++) {
>>>> ISADevice *dev;
>>>> char busname[] = "ide.0";
>>>> dev = isa_ide_init(isa_bus, ide_iobase[i], ide_iobase2[i],
>>>
>>> Don't put variable declarations inside 'for' statements,
>>> please. They should go at the start of a {} block.
>>
>> Why? We're using -std=gnu99 now, so this should not be an issue anymore.
>
> Consistency with the rest of the code base, which mostly
> avoids this particular trick.
We've also got a few spots that use it...
(run e.g.: grep -r 'for (int ' hw/* )
> See the 'Declarations' section of CODING_STYLE.rst.
OK, that's a point. But since this gnu99 is a rather new option that we
just introduced less than a year ago, we should maybe think of whether
we want to allow this for for-loops now, too (since IMHO it's quite a
nice feature in gnu99).
Thomas
