From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78145 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2018 20:41:20 -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 78132 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2018 20:41:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:41:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D31AA637F9; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-27.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.27]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4711001F57; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH/coding style] clarify pointers and operators To: Martin Sebor , Gcc Patch List , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= References: <6bce0b3a-0b0d-f03f-5f92-e00156e63629@gmail.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6bce0b3a-0b0d-f03f-5f92-e00156e63629@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg02115.txt.bz2 On 11/26/18 10:59 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > 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. THanks. That's fine. > > 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? Please do. It's a fairly recent change -- I suspect some old code was never fixed and some folks (perhaps myself) have that extraneous whitespace in their muscle memory and still need to eliminate it. jeff