Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:06:45 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: svn commit: r233052 - head/share/mk Message-ID: <CADLo83_4p-oSpCTfLDcKQrzur-4oEwoBSt8UVsJ4xoirWD7KMA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F678B03.8050307@FreeBSD.org> References: <201203162319.q2GNJjx5039482@svn.freebsd.org> <20120317162754.I1530@besplex.bde.org> <CADLo838oBTwEvYPM1y1XSxCJ2c7EL%2BhqhrcdiDv8%2BuxeuM_hTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F678B03.8050307@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 March 2012 19:37, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2012-03-19 08:21, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 17 Mar 2012 05:40, "Bruce Evans" <brde@optusnet.com.au <mailto:brde@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> >>>> Log: >>>> Change the style of share/mk/bsd.sys.mk <http://bsd.sys.mk>; to that of the other bsd.*.mk >>>> files, and style.Makefile(5), where applicable. While here, update the >>>> link to the gcc warning documentation. >>> >>> >>> Thanks. I rather liked the "^.* foo" style for making ifdefs less >>> unreadable, but it didn't look like it was written here, and it is >>> a sign of other problems that so many nested ifdefs are used. It >>> only used a single space of each level of indentation, so the >>> indentation was still hard too see. >>> >>> The "other bsd.*.mk" files don't include bsd.cpu.mk <http://bsd.cpu.mk>. This still uses >>> the "^. *foo" style (and is now the only *.mk file one that does this). >>> For assignments, it mostly uses a different unusual style -- just the >>> normal C style of a single space before and after '=' (or '+='). Weird >>> formattings of assignments are harder to grep for than weird formattings >>> of ".foo", so I didn't try looking for them all. >> >> Indented .ifs etc are used (inconsistently) in bsd.port.mk <http://bsd.port.mk>; et al, and can make a huge difference to readability; make is such a messy language that multiple levels are often needed. > > Well, the issue with Makefiles is that you cannot indent the actual > statements. So even if you sort-of-indent the directives, by adding > spaces between the initial dot and the directive name, you still have a > very messy left margin. :) > > It would be much nicer to be able to write: > > .if defined(FOO) > .if defined(BAR) > CFLAGS+= -DFOO_BAR > .endif > .endif > > But I guess that would require some overhaul in make. It doesn't grok > such indentations now. That's right, lines starting with whitespace *must* be shell commands-- it'll be some overhaul that changes that... > >> Perhaps we should try to agree a standard on them, perhaps two spaces? It's a shame to be stripping them out. > > Two spaces sounds reasonable enough. Though indent size is probably the > ultimate bikeshed... ;) True-- also whitespace-only changes are probably a bad idea for merges. I'm not suggesting changing anything existing, but I'd sure like to keep the whitespace while it's already there ;) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_4p-oSpCTfLDcKQrzur-4oEwoBSt8UVsJ4xoirWD7KMA>