Updated Style and Coding Conventions
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Mon Jun 2 07:07:28 UTC 2014
thanks for the summary. I have some comments.
"Exception: Spaces are optional around binary bit-wise operators."
What is the background for this exception? So "a&b" is ok, but not "a&&b"? I
would remove this exception. I think "a & b" is much easier to read.
"Put a single space before and no space after unary pointer operators (* and &)."
What about "!a" vs. "! a"? We have both variants currently.
"Use NULL for the null pointer."
What is with tests for the null pointer, e.g. "!ptr" vs "ptr != NULL". I
strongly favor the "ptr != NULL" test. This is also in line with MISRA C and
other standards in that area (only expressions with a boolean result value are
allowed in if statements).
We should add a rule for unused function parameters:
"Use '(void) unused;' to mark unused parameters."
This works without special attributes and uses vertical space, so long function
declarations are avoided.
On 2014-05-29 23:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> Please have a look http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php/Coding_Conventions
> I included some of the recent discussion points we've had, and some
> other points that come up often during code review.
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
More information about the devel