On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 01:53:30PM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
> That might have been a concern when all variable definitions had to be
> at the beginning of a block and when you were more likely to read
> program listings printed out on paper :) This is probably less
> relevant now.
>
It is
Date:Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:01:36 +0200
From:Reinoud Zandijk
Message-ID:
| Oh I do that for I think its more clear
You really write (and think it is more clear) stuff like:
char a;
#if sizeof(struct small) == sizeof(char)/* except you can't, I don't
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:40:22PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:30:19PM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
> | The style guide says:
> |When declaring variables in functions declare them sorted by size
>
> That one ought be deleted, if only because absolutely no-one
| On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 08:30:19PM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
| The style guide says:
|When declaring variables in functions declare them sorted by size
That one ought be deleted, if only because absolutely no-one follows it
(properly). To do that, one would need to fill the
Am Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:16:55AM -0700 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:07 AM Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >
> > Am Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:17:49AM - schrieb Michael van Elst:
> > > jo...@bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
> > >
> > > >Which compiler from this century
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:07 AM Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> Am Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:17:49AM - schrieb Michael van Elst:
> > jo...@bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
> >
> > >Which compiler from this century doesn't allocate stack space
> > >independent from the source order?
> >
> > gcc
Am Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:17:49AM - schrieb Michael van Elst:
> jo...@bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
>
> >Which compiler from this century doesn't allocate stack space
> >independent from the source order?
>
> gcc with -O0 and -O1 allocates variables in source order.
More by accident,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:53:23 +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> > > then in alphabetical order
> >
> > Why does it make sense to sort variables in the order 'bottom, left,
> > right, top' instead of the natural pronunciation order 'top, left,
> > bottom, right', for example? Or 'height, width, x, y'
jo...@bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
>Which compiler from this century doesn't allocate stack space
>independent from the source order?
gcc with -O0 and -O1 allocates variables in source order.
With our notoriously broken gdb, that can be helpful.
