Aftermath of PRs #1505 and #1755 #1771
Conversation
|
cc @t-harvey |
| { | ||
| .property_ref.value_p = NULL, | ||
| .property_p = NULL | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have never seen such an initializator construct, does it C99?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely. Also, see: http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/struct_initialization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But it can be written in an even shorter form. Pushed an update to the PR.
PR jerryscript-project#1505 added support for TI compiler. It explicitly added a message to notify the user that static linking is forced. PR jerryscript-project#1755 added a more generic approach to signal such forced settings and adapted the TI-specific static linking notification to this approach. However, it turned out that TI forcibly changed another setting, too: it disabled release binary stripping, but without notification. This patch fixes this by moving the setting override to a consistent place and adding a notification. PR jerryscript-project#1505 also added some source code changes, most importantly a complex struct initialization for a variable in `ecma-objects-general.c`. However, that initialization was coded as a macro to trick the style checker. This patch gets rid of that macro and uses proper C99 struct initializer with designators. JerryScript-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: Akos Kiss [email protected]
| /* This #def just gets around the syntax/style checker... */ | ||
| #define extended_property_ref_initialization { { 0 } , 0 } | ||
| ecma_extended_property_ref_t ext_property_ref = extended_property_ref_initialization; | ||
| ecma_extended_property_ref_t ext_property_ref = { .property_ref.value_p = NULL, .property_p = NULL }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this not captured by the style checker anymore?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
vera passes, CI is green. And #1773 just landed with a very similar construct (curly-braces-wise).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this is valid. Multiply open braces in the same line is what the vera rule cannot handle.
|
Any formal reviews on this? (Thanks in advance) |
PR #1505 added support for TI compiler. It explicitly added a
message to notify the user that static linking is forced. PR #1755
added a more generic approach to signal such forced settings and
adapted the TI-specific static linking notification to this
approach. However, it turned out that TI forcibly changed another
setting, too: it disabled release binary stripping, but without
notification. This patch fixes this by moving the setting override
to a consistent place and adding a notification.
PR #1505 also added some source code changes, most importantly a
complex struct initialization for a variable in
ecma-objects-general.c. However, that initialization was codedas a macro to trick the style checker. This patch gets rid of that
macro and uses proper C99 struct initializer with designators.
JerryScript-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: Akos Kiss [email protected]