lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] checkpatch: Add missing c90 types
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:52:00AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> c90 section "6.7.2 Type Specifiers" says:
> "type specifiers may occur in any order"
>
> That means that:
> short int is the same as int short
> unsigned short int is the same as int unsigned short
> etc...
>
> checkpatch currently parses only a subset of these allowed types.
>
> For instance: "unsigned short" is a found by checkpatch as a
> specific type, but none of the "signed int" or "int short" variants
> are found.
>
> Change all the existing types to allow signed and unsigned variants.
> Reorder the existing types array to match longest type first.
>
> Add another table for the "kernel style misordered" variants.
>
> Add this misordered table to the findable types.
>
> Warn when the misordered style is used.
>
> This improves the "Missing a blank line after declarations" test as
> it depends on the correct parsing of the $Declare variable which
> looks for "$Type $Ident;" (ie: declarations like "int foo;").
>
> Joe Perches (3):
> checkpatch: Add short int to c variable types
> checkpatch: Add signed generic types
> checkpatch: Add test for native c90 types in unusual order
>
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Looks like a sane plan to me.

Acked-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>

-apw


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-18 13:41    [W:0.258 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site