From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLpgu-00088b-B0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:08:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aLpgr-000072-5s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:08:40 -0500 References: <1452859244-9500-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <1452859244-9500-8-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <569EBFA6.6090709@redhat.com> <569ED31D.1020307@ozlabs.ru> <569F12D2.60307@redhat.com> <569F20D2.3020508@ozlabs.ru> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <569F5CA0.3000804@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:08:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <569F20D2.3020508@ozlabs.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] pseries: Clean up error handling in spapr_rtas_register() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , Eric Blake , David Gibson , armbru@redhat.com Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 20.01.2016 06:53, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 01/20/2016 03:53 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 01/19/2016 05:21 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> >>>> You could drop the redundant () while touching this, as in: >>> >>> >>> Seriously? Why? I personally find it really annoying (but I stay silent) >>> when people omit braces in cases like this. >>> >>> >>>> assert(token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE && token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX); >> >> Because it's the prevailing style. I estimate that less than 10% of qemu >> over-parenthesizes, mostly because && and || are well-known C operator >> precedence: >> >> $ git grep ' && ' | wc >> 6462 57034 482477 >> $ git grep ') && (' | wc >> 578 6151 48655 >> >> Of course, that's a rough estimate, as it has false positives on 'if >> (foo() && (b || c))', and false negatives on conditionals where there is >> a unary rather than binary operator on either side of &&; but I'm sure >> you could write a Coccinelle script if you wanted more accurate counting. >> >> But you are equally right that as long as HACKING doesn't document it, >> and checkpatch.pl doesn't flag it, then you can over-parenthesize binary >> arguments to the short-circuiting operators to your aesthetic tastes. > > C Operator Precedence is well-known and still confusing, I cannot get > used to the fact that /==/etc have higher priority than &/&&/etc so > not seeing braces in the cases like above makes me nervous. Yes, I am > sort of retarded :( > > So, we can keep doing this over-parenthesizing, good, thanks :) For me, it's the other way round: If I notice too many parentheses while reading source code, I have to start thinking - because I then assume that there is something special with the statement so that the parentheses are needed. If I then discover that it was just unnecessary waste of time, I start complaining... So please try to get rid of your parenthesitis, or you've got to live with my complaints ;-) Thomas