Re: [Tinycc-devel] A couple of questions
On 24/02/14 01:59AM, grischka via Tinycc-devel wrote: > On 12.02.2024 15:35, George Sedov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > First of all, I noticed that throughout the codebase there is a mix of > > spaces and tabs. This makes it very difficult to produce out-of-tree > > patches, > > since most of the editors will replace tabs with spaces. Is there a reason > > behind it? > > Obviously then the reason must be that most people here did not > use "most of the editors" ... ;) Off topic, but a text editor that converts tabs to spaces without user's consent is either not properly configured, or just plain bad. joe, ed and vi(m) don't do that. One workaround would be to have a set code style for the project and use a code formatter like GNU indent or clang-format before generating a patch. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] A couple of questions
On 12.02.2024 15:35, George Sedov wrote: Hi all, First of all, I noticed that throughout the codebase there is a mix of spaces and tabs. This makes it very difficult to produce out-of-tree patches, since most of the editors will replace tabs with spaces. Is there a reason behind it? Obviously then the reason must be that most people here did not use "most of the editors" ... ;) The second question is about the bounds check. In the current implementation it is common to first access the provided pointer, and only after that check if it is valid or not (e.g. the __bound_str* functions). Doesn't it defy the whole purpose of the functions? What is the intended usecase of this feature? I guess the intention is to warn you about potential problems, rather than about problems that you already have (crashes or sume such). -- gr BW, George ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] A couple of questions
Hi all, First of all, I noticed that throughout the codebase there is a mix of spaces and tabs. This makes it very difficult to produce out-of-tree patches, since most of the editors will replace tabs with spaces. Is there a reason behind it? The second question is about the bounds check. In the current implementation it is common to first access the provided pointer, and only after that check if it is valid or not (e.g. the __bound_str* functions). Doesn't it defy the whole purpose of the functions? What is the intended usecase of this feature? BW, George ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
