Code standards

Code standards

[=?unknown-8bit?q?R=C3=A9mi?= Denis-Courmont]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 320 bytes --]


	Hello,

I assume the coding styles are the "usual" ones, and the last thing I want is 
to start a flame war about those. But which C dialect is Ofono supposed to be 
written in? plain C89, C89 syntax + C99 library, full C99, GNU C... ?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki

Re: Code standards

[Marcel Holtmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 585 bytes --]

Hi Remi,

> I assume the coding styles are the "usual" ones, and the last thing I want is 
> to start a flame war about those. But which C dialect is Ofono supposed to be 
> written in? plain C89, C89 syntax + C99 library, full C99, GNU C... ?

the coding style of oFono is the same as for the Linux kernel, BlueZ,
ConnMan, obexd etc. So basically checkpatch.pl patches are fine.

When using ./bootstrap-configure is used it enables a certain set of GCC
warnings and it should be warnings free. So that is good measurement for
the style details ;)

Regards

Marcel

Re: Code standards

[=?unknown-8bit?q?R=C3=A9mi?= Denis-Courmont]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1876 bytes --]


    Hello,

> > I assume the coding styles are the "usual" ones, and the last thing I
want is 
> > to start a flame war about those. But which C dialect is Ofono supposed
to be 
> > written in? plain C89, C89 syntax + C99 library, full C99, GNU C... ?

> the coding style of oFono is the same as for the Linux kernel, BlueZ,
> ConnMan, obexd etc. So basically checkpatch.pl patches are fine.

I am not wondering what the cosmetic style is. I am wondering what parts of
the C language are used. Namely many (most?) C programmers claim to use
ANSI C a.k.a. C89 even though there are using lots of GNU C and/or C99
extensions. Inline functions, C++-styled comments, non-constant variable
initializers, variadic macros, named initializers for structs and
fixed-size integer types and (v)snprintf() are perhaps the most commonly
used C99 features. Restricted pointers, variable-sized arrays, mixed
variables and code (including C++-style for() loops), new printf() format
modifiers (e.g. %zu for size_t), booleans and compound initializers are
arguably more "controversial" or less commonly used, but nevertheless
standard.
I tend pretty much all of them (and avoid GNU-specifics like a :? b)
because I don't care about legacy compilers like gcc 2.x or MSVC, but I
don't want to start a religion war.

A related issue is how careful/pedantic use of integer types should be.
Kernel core or glib tend to be sloppy about int vs (s)size_t.

> When using ./bootstrap-configure is used it enables a certain set of GCC
> warnings and it should be warnings free. So that is good measurement for
> the style details ;)

As a matter of fact, current HEAD is failing here with gcc 4.3:
../../src/voicecall.c: In function ‘ofono_voicecall_notify’:
../../src/voicecall.c:1239: error: ‘v’ may be used uninitialized in
this function

-- 
Rémi

Re: Code standards

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --]

Hi,

> I am not wondering what the cosmetic style is. I am wondering what parts of
> the C language are used. Namely many (most?) C programmers claim to use
> ANSI C a.k.a. C89 even though there are using lots of GNU C and/or C99
> extensions. Inline functions, C++-styled comments, non-constant variable
> initializers, variadic macros, named initializers for structs and
> fixed-size integer types and (v)snprintf() are perhaps the most commonly

There is no formal written down standard.  Do keep in mind that oFono is a 
core linux daemon, hence we don't care about compilers other than gcc.  That 
means we use lots of _GNU_SOURCE and gcc extensions, especially when they make 
the code simpler and easier to follow.

As a simple rule: if a certain style element has been used in oFono before, it 
is safe to assume it can be used again.  However, the maintainers have the 
final say on coding style issues.

> used C99 features. Restricted pointers, variable-sized arrays, mixed
> variables and code (including C++-style for() loops), new printf() format
> modifiers (e.g. %zu for size_t), booleans and compound initializers are
> arguably more "controversial" or less commonly used, but nevertheless
> standard.
> I tend pretty much all of them (and avoid GNU-specifics like a :? b)
> because I don't care about legacy compilers like gcc 2.x or MSVC, but I
> don't want to start a religion war.
>
> A related issue is how careful/pedantic use of integer types should be.
> Kernel core or glib tend to be sloppy about int vs (s)size_t.
>
> > When using ./bootstrap-configure is used it enables a certain set of GCC
> > warnings and it should be warnings free. So that is good measurement for
> > the style details ;)
>
> As a matter of fact, current HEAD is failing here with gcc 4.3:
> ../../src/voicecall.c: In function ‘ofono_voicecall_notify’:
> ../../src/voicecall.c:1239: error: ‘v’ may be used uninitialized in
> this function

This was not being reported on gcc 4.3.2, but has been fixed upstream 
nevertheless.

Regards,
-Denis