Skip to content

Aftermath of PRs #1505 and #1755 #1771

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 26, 2017
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions CMakeLists.txt
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -71,8 +71,10 @@ endif()

if(USING_TI)
set(ENABLE_STATIC_LINK "ON")
set(ENABLE_STRIP "OFF")

set(ENABLE_STATIC_LINK_MESSAGE " (FORCED BY COMPILER)")
set(ENABLE_STRIP_MESSAGE " (FORCED BY COMPILER)")
endif()

# Status messages
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -205,9 +207,7 @@ endif()

# Strip binary
if(ENABLE_STRIP AND NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE STREQUAL "Debug")
if (USING_GCC OR USING_CLANG)
jerry_add_link_flags(-s)
endif()
jerry_add_link_flags(-s)
endif()

# External compiler & linker flags
Expand Down
4 changes: 1 addition & 3 deletions jerry-core/ecma/operations/ecma-objects-general.c
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -313,9 +313,7 @@ ecma_op_general_object_define_own_property (ecma_object_t *object_p, /**< the ob
JERRY_ASSERT (property_desc_p->is_writable_defined || !property_desc_p->is_writable);

/* 1. */
/* 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 };
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this not captured by the style checker anymore?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

vera passes, CI is green. And #1773 just landed with a very similar construct (curly-braces-wise).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, this is valid. Multiply open braces in the same line is what the vera rule cannot handle.

ecma_property_t current_prop;

current_prop = ecma_op_object_get_own_property (object_p,
Expand Down