On 04/01/2011 11:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 16:59, Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Peter Maydell<peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth<mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
don't actually violate QEMU's coding guidelines.
We should either update the guidelines or fix the script...
There are a whole bunch of // in the codebase. I prefer /* */ but as
it stands I think // should not even raise a warning.
I don't care much either, really. I just don't think we should be
introducing random coding standards rules by the back door because
checkpatch happens to complain about them.
Whether or not // comments should also be a warning...I'm not sure. It
seems like a reasonable "suggestion" to make though, since mixed comment
styles makes code look nastier. I could also go either way though...
But there *are* some warnings that make sense to complain about without
saying "you can't do this", like extern's in .c files: some cases are
exceptional.
I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat checkpatch.pl
warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward" you get for taking the
time to run it.
-- PMM
