On 19 March 2012 19:37, Dimitry Andric <d...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2012-03-19 08:21, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 17 Mar 2012 05:40, "Bruce Evans" <b...@optusnet.com.au >> <mailto:b...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> >>>> Log: >>>> Change the style of share/mk/bsd.sys.mk <http://bsd.sys.mk> to that of >>>> the other bsd.*.mk >>>> files, and style.Makefile(5), where applicable. While here, update the >>>> link to the gcc warning documentation. >>> >>> >>> Thanks. I rather liked the "^.* foo" style for making ifdefs less >>> unreadable, but it didn't look like it was written here, and it is >>> a sign of other problems that so many nested ifdefs are used. It >>> only used a single space of each level of indentation, so the >>> indentation was still hard too see. >>> >>> The "other bsd.*.mk" files don't include bsd.cpu.mk <http://bsd.cpu.mk>. >>> This still uses >>> the "^. *foo" style (and is now the only *.mk file one that does this). >>> For assignments, it mostly uses a different unusual style -- just the >>> normal C style of a single space before and after '=' (or '+='). Weird >>> formattings of assignments are harder to grep for than weird formattings >>> of ".foo", so I didn't try looking for them all. >> >> Indented .ifs etc are used (inconsistently) in bsd.port.mk >> <http://bsd.port.mk> et al, and can make a huge difference to readability; >> make is such a messy language that multiple levels are often needed. > > Well, the issue with Makefiles is that you cannot indent the actual > statements. So even if you sort-of-indent the directives, by adding > spaces between the initial dot and the directive name, you still have a > very messy left margin. :) > > It would be much nicer to be able to write: > > .if defined(FOO) > .if defined(BAR) > CFLAGS+= -DFOO_BAR > .endif > .endif > > But I guess that would require some overhaul in make. It doesn't grok > such indentations now.
That's right, lines starting with whitespace *must* be shell commands-- it'll be some overhaul that changes that... > >> Perhaps we should try to agree a standard on them, perhaps two spaces? It's >> a shame to be stripping them out. > > Two spaces sounds reasonable enough. Though indent size is probably the > ultimate bikeshed... ;) True-- also whitespace-only changes are probably a bad idea for merges. I'm not suggesting changing anything existing, but I'd sure like to keep the whitespace while it's already there ;) Chris _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
