New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
checksrc: make sure sizeof() is used *with* parentheses #2563
Conversation
Well... this has the drawback of not differencing |
Personally I don't make any distinction between those two versions in my head and I'm not sure why we need to make that distinction in the code. I so much prefer the paren version, especially when used in expressions like But perhaps more importantly, I don't see how we use sizeof paren vs non-paren consistently in the code now. This cleanup is mostly a fix to make us consistently always use the paren version. |
This is a bad example that would fail at compile time. Anyway, this is just a matter of styles and as in any open-source project, there are as many as contributors ! If this is a new rule, https://curl.haxx.se/dev/code-style.html should be updated to mention it. |
... and unify the source code to adhere.
2924340
to
eaf3200
Compare
I'll wait a while for some more feedback. This isn't in any hurry. Rebased and pushed to fix the merge conflict. |
No it wouldn't fail. We actually have exactly this line in the code right now:
... which is one of the lines that made me want to clean this up. For some reason I find that much harder to read than:
And allowing without paren in some situations but not in others were just too hard to make checksrc work with =) |
This one is OK, because Proof:
sizeof is an operator, not a function. It is followed either by an expression that may, as any expression, be parenthesed, or a parenthesed type (like a cast). You cannot have a type without parentheses. Not putting unneeded parenthesis is the emphasing I like to see in code, because it helps you knowing if you have to look for a variable or a typedef. See https://bytes.com/topic/c/answers/543699-sizeof-without-parenthesis |
Yes, you told. And I showed you a case using such a non-paren case that I think is inferior without parentheses. Clearly different tastes. |
I also sometimes do it without parentheses however I have no objection. I can see how having a space after the sizeof may require more cognitive processing to understand an expression. |
... and unify the source code to adhere.