[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:46:37 -0500 (CDT)
- From: joel at oarcorp.com (joel at oarcorp.com)
- Subject: indent
On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Quality Quorum wrote:
> > - And it doesn't know about C++.
> RTEMS is written in C.
There is a C++ wrapper interface to the Classic API in addition to at
least one C++ constructor test. For the most part, RTEMS is in C.
> Wroking thorugh whole RTEMS source tree it complained only 140 times
> and (I checked several cases) still processed code properly.
I was actually surprised that it was that few. Most of the problems were
in code which should be avoided anyway since they are full of GNU
extensions and inline assembly or are not in C anyway.
> > Stylistic differences don't count as `broke'.
> In a big project they do - this is IMHO.
>From a personal perspective, non-standard style in major/common
parts of the tree is much more of a problem than in a BSP.
The popularity of the BSP is a factor in how much of a problem the style
is. The pc386 is a very popular BSP so getting its style write is higher
priority than say the force386 (obsolete board).
Ideally all the code should be in proper style.
- From: qqi at world.std.com (Quality Quorum)