On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 23.06.2022 09:37, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > Rule 8.1 only applies to C90 code, as all the violating instances are > > syntax errors in C99 and later versions of the language. So, > > the following line does not contain a violation of Rule 8.1: > > > > unsigned x; > > > > It does contain a violation of Directive 4.6, though, whose correct > > handling depends on the intention (uint32_t, uin64_t, size_t, ...).
Hi Roberto, Thank you very much for the quick reply and very clear answer! > Interesting - this goes straight against a rule we have set in > ./CODING_STYLE. I'm also puzzled by you including size_t in your list > of examples, when the spec doesn't. The sole "goal" of the directive > (which is advisory only anyway) is to be able to determine allocation > size. size_t size, however, varies as much as short, int, long, etc > do. I wouldn't worry about Directive 4.6 for now. We'll talk about it when we get to it. (Also we already require uint32_t, uint64_t, etc. in all external interfaces and ABIs which I think is what Dir 4.6 cares about the most.) For this series, I suggest to keep the patches because "unsigned int" is better than "unsigned" from a style perspective, but we need to rephrase the commit messages because we cannot claim they are fixing Rule 8.1. Also, thank Jan for spotting the misunderstanding!
