>>> On 19.02.18 at 14:12, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/18 08:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/CODING_STYLE
>> +++ b/CODING_STYLE
>> @@ -88,6 +88,26 @@ Braces should be omitted for blocks with
>>  if ( condition )
>>      single_statement();
>>  
>> +Types
>> +-----
>> +
>> +Use basic C types and C standard mandated typedef-s where possible (and
>> +with preference in this order).  This in particular means to avoid u8,
>> +u16, etc despite those types continuing to exist in our code base.
>> +Fixed width types should only be used when a fixed width quantity is
>> +meant (which for example may be a value read from or to be written to a
>> +register).
>> +
>> +When signedness matters, qualify plain char, short, int, long, and
>> +long long with "signed" or "unsigned".  Signedness is specifically
>> +considered to matter when the valid value range of a variable covers
>> +only non-negative values.  The prime example of such is a variable used
>> +to index an array (negative array indexes, while they may occur, are
>> +rather rare).
> 
> As is evident from the other threads on the subject, I am very
> definitely -1 for littering our codebase with signed in cases like this.

Some context for those not having followed the earlier discussion:
There being quite a number of cases in the code base where plain
int or long are used when no negative values are ever expected
(or even possible) to be held by the respective variables, I would
prefer if we made explicit when signedness of a variable matters.
This then also eliminates signedness concerns for plain char and bit
fields (for both of these one already needs to explicitly add "signed"
when negative values are intended to be held by the variable/field,
at least if we don't want to tie ourselves to compiler specific
behavior).

> IMO they do nothing but harm readibility.

How does making something explicit harm readability?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to