ANSI-fy of ranlib, ruptime and rdist [patches]

Douwe Kiela virtus at
Sat Jul 24 09:14:43 PDT 2004

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 05:42:38AM +0200, Douwe Kiela wrote:

* In some cases I find that *rintf() function calls are preceeded by a
(void) cast,
e.g. (void) printf("blah"); do we want this all over the code, or don't we
want this
all over the code? In my opinion consistency is a key factor, so we should
maintain this method everywhere, or nowhere.. Opinions about this?

Remove them. I'm not really sure why there have been introduced in first
place, but this is IMO anachronistic.
[skip return value, no opinion on that}

* Concerning error checking, what should be used, the return value of a
function checked
within a condition, or the condition that checks the return value
seperately, i.e.
if ((buf = malloc(bsize)) == NULL)
         err(1, "buffer");
buf = malloc(bsize);
if (buf == NULL)
         err(1, "buffer");
Any opinions on this? Or just let it be the way it is?

I strongly prefer the second version, which is cleaner and often makes
the code more readable by avoiding site-effects in conditionals. changing
it depends on the context, but discouraging it in style(9) should be fine.

* Concerning the initialisation of function-scoped variables, which one is
the correct..
to assign values to variables in their declaration, e.g. int var = 0; or
seperately, e.g.
int var;
var = 0;
This is being mixed all over the code, which one is the correct?

Normally it is preferable to keep it separate. But an important exception
is are quasi-arguments like they are used in the kernel for newbus functions.
You normally get a device_t instance passed as argument and are only
interested in the softc associated with it, so the
	struct XX_softc = device_get_softc(dev);
is fine. Similiar arguments are true for net layer and struct ifnet or
cast of arguments to the appropiately typed variable.

That's all for now, I think ;-)

A small note, your MUA does some strange things with the line breaking,
can you fix that?
Yep, this is fixed now.. I was using Outlook Express, because this is my
business computer, now I use Mozilla Thunderbird, so it should all be 
fixed. Sorry 'bout that :) Let's begin.. :P

More information about the Submit mailing list