From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51137 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PgLah-0002SC-Jg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:20:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PgLac-0008KJ-Uc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:20:07 -0500 Received: from mail-pv0-f173.google.com ([74.125.83.173]:43914) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PgLac-0008KD-OS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:20:02 -0500 Received: by pvh11 with SMTP id 11so384028pvh.4 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:20:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Blue Swirl Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:19:41 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: checkpatch.pl false positives with HELPER macro List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Peter Maydell w= rote: > If you run checkpatch on the patch at > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79735/ > > then it has a number of false-positive errors like this: > > ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV) > #74: FILE: target-arm/neon_helper.c:201: > +uint32_t HELPER(neon_qadd_u32)(CPUState *env, uint32_t a, uint32_t b) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ^ > which I assume are because it's got confused by the HELPER() macro. > Maybe HELPER() is sufficiently commonly used to be worth teaching it > about as a special case? There's also glue() and other macro wizardry. I don't think that can be avo= ided. > Also, checkpatch says: > > sataddsub.patch has style problems, please review. =C2=A0If any of these = errors > are false positives report them to the maintainer, see > CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > but there isn't anything about CHECKPATCH in our MAINTAINERS file... I wouldn't be very optimistic about the rate of false positives, so perhaps this suggestion should be turned into a warning about them.