Before:
total: 6 errors, 1 warnings, 117 lines checked
After:
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 117 lines checked
paolo@paolo-desktop:~/linux.trees.git$ md5sum /tmp/reg_constant.o.*
780388a3056d58fb759efaf190d5d3d1 /tmp/reg_constant.o.after
780388a3056d58fb759efaf190d5d3d1 /tmp/reg_constant.o.before
paolo@paolo-desktop:~/linux.trees.git$ size /tmp/reg_constant.o.*
text data bss dec hex filename
457 0 0 457 1c9 /tmp/reg_constant.o.after
457 0 0 457 1c9 /tmp/reg_constant.o.before
Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/math-emu/reg_constant.c | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/math-emu/reg_constant.c b/arch/x86/math-emu/reg_constant.c
index 04869e6..0054835 100644
--- a/arch/x86/math-emu/reg_constant.c
+++ b/arch/x86/math-emu/reg_constant.c
@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@
#include "reg_constant.h"
#include "control_w.h"
-#define MAKE_REG(s,e,l,h) { l, h, \
- ((EXTENDED_Ebias+(e)) | ((SIGN_##s != 0)*0x8000)) }
+#define MAKE_REG(s, e, l, h) { l, h, \
+ ((EXTENDED_Ebias+(e)) | ((SIGN_##s != 0)*0x8000)) }
FPU_REG const CONST_1 = MAKE_REG(POS, 0, 0x00000000, 0x80000000);
#if 0
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ FPU_REG const CONST_PI2extra = MAKE_REG(NEG, -66,
FPU_REG const CONST_Z = MAKE_REG(POS, EXP_UNDER, 0x0, 0x0);
/* Only the sign and significand (and tag) are used in internal NaNs */
-/* The 80486 never generates one of these
+/* The 80486 never generates one of these
FPU_REG const CONST_SNAN = MAKE_REG(POS, EXP_OVER, 0x00000001, 0x80000000);
*/
/* This is the real indefinite QNaN */
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ FPU_REG const CONST_QNaN = MAKE_REG(NEG, EXP_OVER, 0x00000000, 0xC0000000);
/* Only the sign (and tag) is used in internal infinities */
FPU_REG const CONST_INF = MAKE_REG(POS, EXP_OVER, 0x00000000, 0x80000000);
-static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
+static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
{
FPU_REG *st_new_ptr;
--
1.5.6.rc1.21.g03300
* Paolo Ciarrocchi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Before:
> total: 6 errors, 1 warnings, 117 lines checked
>
> After:
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 117 lines checked
applied to tip/x86/cleanups, thanks.
Ingo
Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>
> -static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
> +static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
________________________________________^
The above does not seem to me like a big improvement in code quality. A
false positive from checkpatch.pl?
Dmitri
> {
> FPU_REG *st_new_ptr;
>
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Dmitri Vorobiev
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>>
>> -static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
>> +static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
> ________________________________________^
>
> The above does not seem to me like a big improvement in code quality. A
> false positive from checkpatch.pl?
Yes, I think you are right.
Andy CC'ed so that he can have a look at that.
Thanks.
regards,
--
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Dmitri Vorobiev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>>>
>>> -static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
>>> +static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
>> ________________________________________^
>>
>> The above does not seem to me like a big improvement in code quality. A
>> false positive from checkpatch.pl?
It should obviously be
static void fld_const(const FPU_REG *c, int adj, u_char tag)
FPU_REG is not an appropriate type name though. Is "typedef struct
fpu__reg FPU_REG;" necessary at all? (Removing it would create some
code churn all over x86/math-emu/ though. Maybe not desirable.)
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -==- =--=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Dmitri Vorobiev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >>
> >> -static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
> >> +static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
> > ________________________________________^
> >
> > The above does not seem to me like a big improvement in code quality. A
> > false positive from checkpatch.pl?
>
> Yes, I think you are right.
> Andy CC'ed so that he can have a look at that.
That would be a false positive if we are recommending that. I have
pushed this fragment in isolation through all versions back to 0.15 and
none of them recommend it.
Ahh, but if I push the whole patch through 0.19 spits it out. Ok this
is a subtle bug in modifier procesing and is fixed in the head of my
tree. Will be fixed in the next batch which goes up to -mm.
-apw
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Dmitri Vorobiev
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>>>> -static void fld_const(FPU_REG const *c, int adj, u_char tag)
>>>> +static void fld_const(FPU_REG const * c, int adj, u_char tag)
>>> ________________________________________^
>>>
>>> The above does not seem to me like a big improvement in code quality. A
>>> false positive from checkpatch.pl?
>> Yes, I think you are right.
>> Andy CC'ed so that he can have a look at that.
>
> That would be a false positive if we are recommending that. I have
> pushed this fragment in isolation through all versions back to 0.15 and
> none of them recommend it.
>
> Ahh, but if I push the whole patch through 0.19 spits it out. Ok this
> is a subtle bug in modifier procesing and is fixed in the head of my
> tree. Will be fixed in the next batch which goes up to -mm.
Maybe it makes sense for Ingo to revert the original Paolo's patch now?
Dmitri