All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] devtools: allow variable declaration inside for loop
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 11:23:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <529ef8b3-ec0b-262d-1893-e82bf8016ca5@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZFIxL7wYtDBH2MEi@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>

On 5/3/2023 11:02 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 10:50:18AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> Declaring variable inside for loop is not supported via C89 and it was
>> checked in checkpatch.sh via commit [1].  But as DPDK supported C
>> standard is becoming C99 [2], declaring variable inside loop can be
>> allowed.
>>
>> [1] Commit 43e73483a4b8 ("devtools: forbid variable declaration inside
>> for")
>>
>> [2] https://dpdk.org/patch/121912
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com> --- Cc: Bruce
>> Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Cc: David Marchand
>> <david.marchand@redhat.com> --- devtools/checkpatches.sh | 8 -------- 1
>> file changed, 8 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Definite +1 from me for allowing this. However, is the plan still to move
> to C99 in this release. I thought we were just going to jump to C11 in
> 23.11 release? However, I can't see any compilers refusing this if we do
> relax things a bit now.

I will update the commit log for target as C99/C11 .

> 
> I was thinking that our coding standards doc might need an update for this,
> but I don't see the restriction on not doing this documented there, so it
> seems no doc change is necessary.
> 

Commit 43e73483a4b8 refers to following document:

http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#local-variables

Which has: "Variables should be declared at the start of a block of code
rather than in the middle."

Although it is comparing between declaring start of a block and middle
of the code, maybe we can update the document to explicitly state that
declaring variable inside for loop is allowed to prevent confusion.

Let me send a new version with documentation update.



  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-03 10:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-03  9:50 [PATCH v1] devtools: allow variable declaration inside for loop Ferruh Yigit
2023-05-03 10:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-05-03 10:23   ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2023-05-03 10:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Ferruh Yigit
2023-05-03 10:57   ` Bruce Richardson
2023-05-03 12:19     ` Morten Brørup
2023-05-03 15:01       ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-05-03 15:06         ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-07-20  4:05           ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=529ef8b3-ec0b-262d-1893-e82bf8016ca5@amd.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.