Re: [PATCH] pedantic code cleanup - am I wasting my time with this?

[Jesper Juhl <juhl@eisenstein.dk>]

Richard Gooch wrote:

> Jesper Juhl writes:
>
>> All the above does is to remove the last comma from 3 enumeration
>> lists.  I know that gcc has no problem with that, but to be strictly
>> correct the last entry should not have a trailing comma.
> 
> 
> But it's more people-friendly to have that trailing comma. It makes
> adding new enumerations just slightly easier, and also makes it easier
> to manually apply failed patches. I'd rather see those trailing commas
> left in.

> 

You are right. As several people have pointed out to me it is in fact 
legal to have the trailing comma. And it _does_ make it easier to add 
new lines.
At least I have learned a lesson here; be 100% sure of your facts before 
posting to linux-kernel ;)

> 
>> Another example is the following line (1266) from linux/include/net/sock.h
>> 
>>          return (waitall ? len : min(sk->rcvlowat, len)) ? : 1;
>> 
>> To be strictly correct the second expression (between '?' and ':' ) 
>> should not be omitted (all you guys already know that ofcourse).
> 
> 
> Yeah, that one's pretty ugly and unreadable.
> 

That function (sock_rcvlowat()) only gets called a few places, so I'll 
see if I can figure out exactely what's going on and come up with a 
better construct (it might take me ages, but I'm determined to learn to 
find my way around this code)...

> 
> Go ahead and make suggestions. I expect some things will be accepted,
> some rejected (just like I did). Steer clear of any brace or tabbing
> style changes, though.
> 

Ok, I'll continue reading code and keep my eyes open for these things.

[...]

> The goal should *not* be to shut up gcc. The goal should be to produce
> more readable code and to fix bugs. Gcc is merely a tool. And a flawed
> one, at that.
> 

I'll remember that. Thank you to everyone who have taken their time to 
answer my post, you have all been very helpfull!

- Jesper Juhl - juhl@eisenstein.dk