On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:41:21PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > Although we have nothing in make syntax-check to enforce this, and > apparently there are places where it isn't the case (according to > Dan), we should discourage the practice of defining new variables in > the middle of a block of code. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-July/msg00433.html > Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > docs/coding-style.rst | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst > index 03b89c86e5..b9b4a16987 100644 > --- a/docs/coding-style.rst > +++ b/docs/coding-style.rst > @@ -541,6 +541,44 @@ diligent about this, when you see a non-const pointer, you're > guaranteed that it is used to modify the storage it points to, or > it is aliased to another pointer that is. > > +Defining Local Variables > +------------------------ > + > +Always define local variables at the top of the block in which they > +are used (before any pure code). Although modern C compilers allow > +defining a local variable in the middle of a block of code, this > +practice can lead to bugs, and must be avoided in all libvirt > +code. (As indicated in these examples, it is okay to initialize > +variables where they are defined, even if the initialization involves > +calling another function.) > + > +:: > + > + GOOD: > + int > + Bob(char *loblaw) Since we are nitpicking I don't think we allow the first letter of the function name to be uppercase. :) Reviewed-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
