On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 16:08, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 15/11/2019 16.54, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 15:10, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> >> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c
> >> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine,
> >> X86MachineState *x86ms = X86_MACHINE(machine);
> >> MemoryRegion *system_memory = get_system_memory();
> >> MemoryRegion *system_io = get_system_io();
> >> - int i;
> >> PCIBus *pci_bus;
> >> ISABus *isa_bus;
> >> PCII440FXState *i440fx_state;
> >> @@ -253,7 +252,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine,
> >> }
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IDE_ISA
> >> else {
> >> - for(i = 0; i < MAX_IDE_BUS; i++) {
> >> + for (int i = 0; i < MAX_IDE_BUS; i++) {
> >> ISADevice *dev;
> >> char busname[] = "ide.0";
> >> dev = isa_ide_init(isa_bus, ide_iobase[i], ide_iobase2[i],
> >
> > Don't put variable declarations inside 'for' statements,
> > please. They should go at the start of a {} block.
>
> Why? We're using -std=gnu99 now, so this should not be an issue anymore.
Consistency with the rest of the code base, which mostly
avoids this particular trick. See the 'Declarations' section
of CODING_STYLE.rst.
As Paolo points out, there's a nice convenient block
here already, so there's not much to be gained from
putting the declaration in the middle of the for statement.
thanks
-- PMM
