[U-Boot-Users] Patch to clean up syntax highlighting

[Steven A. Falco <sfalco@harris.com>]

Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>
> Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>> Steven A. Falco wrote:
>>> My text-editor (vim) has a bit of trouble syntax-highlighting the
>>> cmd_nvedit.c
>>> file, because it apparently does not parse C ifdef/else/endif.  The
>>> following
>>> patch does not change the behavior of the code at all, but does
>>> allow the
>>> editor to properly syntax-highlight the file.
>>>
>>> Comments invited.
>>
>> OK, you invited comments so I'll be the designated curmudgeon
>> tonight... I'm not wild about uglifying our code to accommodating vim
>> syntax highlighting limitations.  Perhaps you can fix the vim syntax
>> highlighting instead?
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Steve Falco <sfalco@harris.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/common/cmd_nvedit.c b/common/cmd_nvedit.c
>>> index 9c5d1fc..1ac91ea 100644
>>> --- a/common/cmd_nvedit.c
>>> +++ b/common/cmd_nvedit.c
>>> @@ -179,11 +179,12 @@ int _do_setenv (int flag, int argc, char *argv[])
>>>           * Ethernet Address and serial# can be set only once,
>>>           * ver is readonly.
>>>           */
>>> +        if (
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_UID
>>>          /* Allow serial# forced overwrite with 0xdeaf4add flag */
>>> -        if ( ((strcmp (name, "serial#") == 0) && (flag !=
>>> 0xdeaf4add)) ||
>>> +            ((strcmp (name, "serial#") == 0) && (flag !=
>>> 0xdeaf4add)) ||
>>>  #else
>>> -        if ( (strcmp (name, "serial#") == 0) ||
>>> +            (strcmp (name, "serial#") == 0) ||
>>>  #endif
>>>              ((strcmp (name, "ethaddr") == 0)
>>>  #if defined(CONFIG_OVERWRITE_ETHADDR_ONCE) && defined(CONFIG_ETHADDR)
>>
>> I probably should confess I don't use syntax highlighting so that
>> probably factors in to my lack of sympathy.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> gvb
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> I got a good night's sleep and a cup of coffee in me and so I'm a
> little more mellow this morning.  ;-)
>
> Looking at the source code, its pretty ugly already.  Your change
> doesn't make it any more ugly and it could be argued that it is
> slightly less ugly (your patch removes the duplication of the "if(
> (...)" statement).  I also don't see any alternative that would make
> the code beautiful.  :-(
>
> Anyway, I formally withdraw my objection to this patch.
>
> Best regards,
> gvb
>

Glad to hear it. :-)     

So this is probably my first actual contribution to u-boot.  Is there
something more I should do to have this patch merged into an official
tree, or will the appropriate person pick it up when time permits?

    Steve