From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48786)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1R3DQB-0004ok-Mi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:48:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1R3DQA-00037K-5l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:48:03 -0400
Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:53296)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1R3DQA-00037E-1y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:48:02 -0400
Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so4292576gxk.33
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1315859581-27703-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
References: <1315859581-27703-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:48:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA8sNycdTkuL=cWDq9zmj5ZTKMLzkZPN36cLSYEEz4t5uQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Remove blanks before \n in output strings
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 12 September 2011 21:33, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
> Those blanks violate the coding conventions, see
> scripts/checkpatch.pl.

I can see doing this if there are any cases of actual
output-to-users here, but for debug printfs, it scarcely
seems worth the effort. I'm not arguing against this particular
patch, since you've done the work now; just wondering what the
motivation was...

> diff --git a/tests/test-i386.c b/tests/test-i386.c
> index 9cb5b51..8e64bba 100644
> --- a/tests/test-i386.c
> +++ b/tests/test-i386.c
> @@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ void test_fcmp(double a, double b)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "fstsw %%ax\n"
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : "=3Da" (fpus)
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : "t" (a), "u" (b));
> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0printf("fcom(%f %f)=3D%04lx \n",
> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0printf("fcom(%f %f)=3D%04lx\n",
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a, b, fpus & (0x4500 | FPUS_EMAS=
K));
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 fpu_clear_exceptions();
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 asm("fucom %2\n"

(To save anybody else checking) Changing the output of this test
program is OK because tests/Makefile makes the arguable assumption
that we're running on an x86 box and can regenerate the "known good"
output reference rather than having to keep a copy in git...

thanks
-- PMM