From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=k81PmYPM; spf=pass (domain: linaro.org, ip: 209.85.128.66, mailfrom: leif.lindholm@linaro.org) Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by groups.io with SMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:33:08 -0700 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id n10so82342wmj.0 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:33:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GQy5Tmfr13xwCMQq58BaOtMIWzYVNiygz+LyTVqkz1E=; b=k81PmYPMfazVYZbNOmBe0B96jLM1LtqlRqvjm/1j5n2Tm4XbI1JK3km6fiLsbgZj8/ JkeXLy9b/IG6POKpluiFPaqN7gMsd8u5MRayFM/HTTg070cSkQvP8p3yg4TWHe+Hshai XZO6FE+NP68dxW580cCvT3kuK3ro9H+DyXy5KLSBnz3di/0KVKfSmZESzvKUEPwhGdOj IYcGjE/U8m4d87ScL98BwGQXjzOe81Ew1TNFiABBCcL/5xbkBytSvTyVTTViVneQE64p qY8TZ282Cjdbdwm4PssfRDT9spvBYirD/FQgbXMOwFyOswX+iJN1DZOgRgBNuK7Lh6cK wmEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GQy5Tmfr13xwCMQq58BaOtMIWzYVNiygz+LyTVqkz1E=; b=WryvPVqiKS+JONskgI1EVh9AcRS9MeQwKvRuIp4G3AGm7xPrh9Z7AJ9oBOArAZZJgo B1DyIqC0B0Bg5Jz1XuFZw47l3FkGukd6Jzi6CEIhCv6M9OkkM4kGR0IZAyX/d40PP+e/ mtpl/zDEyy4RSteSq48q1skiKUIGkTN1u9V5Gjlx4zCxEYzjKdxlbCU+sdSDrNClXv/1 CZuNw6yWnq1XEzSVxhiaB7eTSTbqehZY7AsVymhkcPV4iehiWI020u5+aFBSsRXPitHV F0chUCnLsx2jqCzcKVsk6bs9iKjPX7Mc5XXS6KSfL6e/8pa4kCqUy0fX6rgi2V4k/7Rc qmsA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUM7NdPvqUT+ljjDbqV3AR4yGjfNfETqxqigE1/ti97XbO8wy5I mvVAM2dPPp6OaTlDgw0PyRliKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrxhAgJ9Pxr+tgKdLw5ToSUeOjdCihf8B987jNPitg2KdZ0OnqQVOIs1hcvMylFDfQ0pVhqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a851:: with SMTP id r78mr75596wme.166.1568129586760; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q14sm38178293wrc.77.2019.09.10.08.33.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:33:04 +0100 From: "Leif Lindholm" To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel-groups-io , Andrew Fish , Michael D Kinney , Rebecca Cran , Philippe Mathieu-Daude Subject: Re: [PATCH edk2-CCSS 0/3] Coding Standards: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments Message-ID: <20190910153304.GD15201@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20190905183820.10312-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20190906122623.GS29255@bivouac.eciton.net> <54fb3783-7589-feff-e446-1e592686d7d2@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <54fb3783-7589-feff-e446-1e592686d7d2@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 09/06/19 14:26, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:38:17PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification.git > >> Branch: spurious_assign_bz_607 > >> > >> HTML-rendered views of the modified pages: > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607 > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/62_comments.html > >> - https://lersek.gitbooks.io/laszlo-s-fork-of-the-edk-ii-c-coding-standards-sp/content/v/spurious_assign_bz_607/6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.html > >> > >> The first two patches are cleanups for things that popped up in the > >> discussion in . > >> > >> The third patch is the one fixing the BZ. > > > > For 1 and 2, > > Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm > > > > For 3, I see no issue with it, but I do feel tempted by Phil's input > > of using explicit macros (obviating the need for specific comment). > > I seem to recall back in the mists of time we considered something > > similar. > > Yes, I remember similarly. > > > Vaguely. Am I misremembering, or did we disount that option? > > Phil's current recommendation is what I would have preferred back then, > but it was rejected, as far as I recall. If I remember correctly, most > developers preferred naked NULLs / zeroes. I insisted on the comment as > a fallback / compromise, so that we'd have at least some visual cue. I'm not even sure I wasn't one of the people opposed to it then. But if I was, I would appear to have changed my mind. > I could be mis-remembering; we can restart that discussion if now the > macros are preferred. I would be all for that. However, I see no reason why we shouldn't document the current process in the meantime, so for 3/3 also: Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm Best Regards, Leif > Thanks, > Laszlo > > > > > Regards, > > > > Leif > > > >> Thanks, > >> Laszlo > >> > >> Cc: Andrew Fish > >> Cc: Leif Lindholm > >> Cc: Michael D Kinney > >> Cc: Rebecca Cran > >> > >> Laszlo Ersek (3): > >> comments: remove "Horror Vacui" rule > >> comments: restrict and clarify applicability of "/*" comments > >> must comment: add rule for documenting spurious variable assignments > >> > >> 6_documenting_software/62_comments.md | 20 +--------- > >> 6_documenting_software/64_what_you_must_comment.md | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >> README.md | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > >> > >> -- > >> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > >> >