From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:27:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Message-ID: <20051213102725.GA4900@elte.hu> References: <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213075835.GZ15804@wotan.suse.de> <20051213004257.0f87d814.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213084926.GN23384@wotan.suse.de> <20051213090429.GC27857@infradead.org> <20051213101141.GI31785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20051213101938.GA30118@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051213101938.GA30118@infradead.org> To: Christoph Hellwig , Jakub Jelinek , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:11:41AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:04:29AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > > > Remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement > > > > > > > > Now that gcc 2.95 is not supported anymore it's ok to use C99 > > > > style mixed declarations everywhere. > > > > > > Nack. This code style is pure obsfucation and we should disallow it forever. > > > > Why? It greatly increases readability when variable declarations can be > > moved close to their actual uses. glibc changed a lot of its codebase > > this way and from my experience it really helps. > > mentioning glibc and readability in the same sentence disqualies your > here, sorry ;-) it's a different coding style, but otherwise i find glibc highly readable and well-maintained. It is also a more mature piece of code than say the kernel, e.g. API-wise, so we could indeed learn a few things. Just consider the fact that glibc has 10 times more APIs than the kernel, and still it is breaking apps less often than the kernel. But i digress :-) Ingo