[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4717BBD0.7070504@qumranet.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:02:24 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: latest checkpatch
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl
>>> wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about
>>> the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block
>>> _except_ the only safe single-line statement:
>>>
>>> if (x)
>>> y();
>>>
>> Indeed. We should probabally do more on the indentation checks in
>> general. The current direct check for:
>>
>> if (foo);
>> bar();
>>
>> Could probabally be generalised to look for this kind of error:
>>
>> if (foo)
>> bar();
>> baz();
>> one();
>>
>
> detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug
> because the intent is often to have bar() and baz() in the conditional
> block.
>
>
This is more useful operating on an entire file, so the script can see
all the context.
A 'gcc -Windentation-contradicts-codeflow -Werror' would be nice.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists