[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:30:42 -0500 (CDT)
- From: joel at oarcorp.com (joel at oarcorp.com)
- Subject: indent
On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, David Fiddes wrote:
> As far as I can see the only parts of RTEMS that have a real consitency
> problem are the BSPs. Each BSP seems to have it's own coding style which
> makes it hard for newcomers to pickup what going on... at least I found it
> tough :) Perhaps a set of written coding guidelines would be sufficient... I
> am deeply suspicious of programs that modify my code.
This is a fair assessment of what varies stylistically. I would add
chunks of libcpu and exec/score/cpu for submitted ports.
A style guide would be most the most useful thing for future submissions
but getting the current BSPs in shape is another problem entirely.
FWIW I am scared of hand reformatting. I am sure many of you have had me
do it to your code. And if you look at any particular patch between
snapshots, it is likely that I have snuck in a style change. It is a lot
of work to do though.
FYI in the current style, tabs are off-limits. Indent 2 spaces. I often
run "expand" on submissions.
> > What happens post 4.0 is of course another issue.
> What with FreeBSD and EGCS 1.1 I've kind off forgotten what all needs to be
> done before we can go for a release/public beta.
> The things I'm figure I should be working on are:
> - Eric's ColdFire optimised checksum routine. Needs a few bits fixed before
> it will work but is mostly there :)
OK. I thought Eric's patch was sufficient so I was not thinking of this
as a problem.
> - Continue testing FreeBSD with my NE2000 ethernet driver.... The stack is
> rock solid so far and spits out nice error messages when my code goes wrong.
That is what Eric loves to hear.
> - Get EGCS 1.1 running and tested under Cygwin32.
The EGCS 1.1 part of this is not critical for an RTEMS release. One of
the original delays for 4.0 was cygwin32 and pc386 so that part is
> - Keep testing Cygwin32..no problems for ages :)
Unfortunately. Maybe with Ian on the list now, he can bend some ears for
> Is there anything that I could be getting on with that would be more useful
> to getting a release ready?
I don't think so. If anyone has a small pet peeve, I would like to know
about it. I am desperately trying to avoid a big modification/submission
at this point. So far 4.0 has been officially delayed 3 times to add
something: cygwin, pc386, and the freebsd stack. I am not sorry for
choosing to delay the release to add those features. I just would rather
there not be a fourth thing. :)
I have asked a few people off-line what they thought was left before a
public release and the answer is usually nothing or just a few minor
items. I would like to cut one or two more snapshots, then a beta4.
- From: D.J.Fiddes at hw.ac.uk (David Fiddes)