On 04/19/2016 12:47 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 19 April 2016 at 20:35, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >> On 04/19/2016 12:32 PM, Chad Versace wrote: >>> On Tue 19 Apr 2016, Ian Romanick wrote: >>>> On 04/19/2016 12:15 PM, Chad Versace wrote: >>>>> On Tue 19 Apr 2016, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>>>> On 19 April 2016 at 19:38, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/19/2016 07:48 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18 April 2016 at 19:01, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/18/2016 08:06 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18 April 2016 at 04:43, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Grazvydas Ignotas <nota...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> FYI, systemd uses a nice convention for attributes that is nicer on the >>>>> eyes than ALL_CAPS and doesn't violate the standard with >>>>> double-underscore. systemd declares attributes as _lower_case_. >>>>> >>>>> For example: >>>>> >>>>> #define _maybe_unused_ __attribute__((unused)) >>>> >>>> That wouldn't be terrible. If there is general support changing, we >>>> should change all of everything at once... and document the new practice. >>>> >>>> My goal previously in the thread is to explain how and why we got to >>>> where we are... and how that supports the patch as is. :) >>> >>> I also support that patch as-is. But... >>> >>> MAYBE_UNUSED tells you the variable is *unimportant* by YELLING. It >>> *accentuates* the unimportant rather than diminishing it. >>> >>> I prefer to reserve ALL_CAPS for items that need TO SCREAM AND GET YOUR >>> ATTENION; things like FIXME, TODO, and macros like MAX() that suffer >>> from multiple-expansion. Using ALL_CAPS for innocuous items like an >>> "unused" attribute hurts my eyes, and distracts me from more important >>> things in the code. >> >> That's fair, and I don't disagree. I think I set the acceptance >> criteria. Patches welcome. :D >> > Strange. Your earlier replies read exactly the opposite - like you > wanted to have all the SHOUTING. I guess for the future I'll start > switching the caps lock. It seems to help a getting point across.
I think we've learned a hard lesson over the years that gradually changing style patch-by-patch sucks. The code base should, above all else, be self consistent. Otherwise people copy style from the wrong thing, and the whole thing turns into a mess. To that end, individual patches should maintain the status quo. If we decide to change a point of style, we should 1. Document it. 2. Update the whole code base. I didn't always feel this way, but the mixing and matching has just gotten so irritating. We picked the old method for two reasons. - It's irritating to cherry-pick patches back across style changes. I think this is probably less irritating than what we have now. - It can be a lot of work to update the style of the whole code base. I think tools exist now so that most changes can be automated. This isn't always the case. > Also there are many other macros that we're missing fro MSVC - packed, > printf, constructor... Some of their semantics do differ from the gcc > version, so I'm not surprised that people did not try getting them in, > considering the length/direction this discussion turned out. > > Emil > P.S. I'm not trying to be cheeky here, just pointing out why sometimes > things end up in /dev/null _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
