hipl-core team mailing list archive

[Christof Mroz <christof.mroz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:03:23 +0200, Diego Biurrun <diego@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > It should be described in the HACKING files of both PISA and HIPL.
> > > Have you read them?
> >
> > Yes but obviously not thoroughly enough :) didn't notice there's a
> > distinction between assignments and function calls regarding indention.
>
> How can this be made clearer?

I'd propose this:

=== modified file 'doc/HACKING'
--- doc/HACKING 2010-05-26 13:09:00 +0000
+++ doc/HACKING 2010-08-29 13:51:58 +0000
@@ -489,12 +489,14 @@

 - line length:
   Long lines (>80 characters) should be broken at suitable places
-  where doing so improves readability. Broken lines should not be
-  mechanically indented by four spaces. Instead they should be
-  indented for optimum readability. For example function arguments
-  placed on the next line should align with the first character
-  after the '('.
-
+  where doing so improves readability.
+  - Function calls should not be mechanically indented by four spaces.
+    Instead they should be indented for optimum readability. For example,
+    arguments placed on the next line should align with the first
+    character after the '('. If no argument fits on the current
+    line, place the opening brace on the next indented by 8 spaces.
+  - Cases not covered by the above rules, like assignments,
+    should be indented by 8 spaces.
 - prettyprinting:
   In cases where this improves readability, vertical alignment
   around operators etc. should be applied.
@@ -525,7 +527,7 @@

 /* Function declarations are broken down to avoid overly long lines. */
 static void a_function_with_a_long_name(struct ip_pkt *pkt,
-                                        struct opaque op,
+                                        struct opaque *op,
                                         int value)
 {
     int i;
@@ -553,6 +555,23 @@
     }
 }

+static void blah(int a, int b) {
+    /* excessive nesting should be avoided but if it can't,
+     * remember the following rules */
+    if(a) {
+        if(b) {
+            struct opaque blah;
+
+            /* indent broken assignments by 8 spaces */
+            blah.transport_hdr.tcp = (struct tcphdr*)
+                    (((char *) iphdr) + ip_hdr_len);
+
+            /* opening '(' on next line if no argument fits */
+            yet_another_function_with_a_long_name
+                    (a_function_with_a_long_name(NULL, &blah, 0xC0FFEE));
+        }
+    }
+}

 CODING CONVENTIONS
 ==================

> > Did I get it right this time?
>
> Define "right".  The patch you attached is not an indentation fix.

Ah yes, I was referring to indentation.

> Looks fine at a glance though.

Okay.