From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85063 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2018 10:05:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 85027 invoked by uid 89); 5 Dec 2018 10:05:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=crude, Hx-languages-length:951, mseborgmailcom, msebor@gmail.com X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:05:00 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F2680D; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 02:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.32.99.101]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C31C83F575; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 02:04:57 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: Martin Sebor Mail-Followup-To: Martin Sebor ,Gcc Patch List , Martin =?utf-8?Q?Li=C5=A1ka?= , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Gcc Patch List , Martin =?utf-8?Q?Li=C5=A1ka?= Subject: Re: [PATCH/coding style] clarify pointers and operators References: <6bce0b3a-0b0d-f03f-5f92-e00156e63629@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <6bce0b3a-0b0d-f03f-5f92-e00156e63629@gmail.com> (Martin Sebor's message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:59:47 -0700") Message-ID: <87wooo5lx3.fsf@arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 Thanks for doing this, Martin Sebor writes: > Martin suggested we update the Coding Conventions to describe > the expected style for function declarations with a pointer > return types, and for overloaded operators. Below is the patch. > > As an aside, regarding the space convention in casts: a crude > grep search yields about 10,000 instances of the "(type)x" kinds > of casts in GCC sources and 40,000 of the preferred "(type) x" > style with the space. That's a consistency of only 80%. Is > it worth documenting a preference for a convention that's so > inconsistently followed? Just to be sure, does that grep include things like the go frontend and its GCC interface, which deliberately don't follow GNU conventions? A crude grep for me gives 92% consistency in gcc/* itself (excluding subdirectories), although that's still disappointingly low... Thanks, Richard