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@redhat.com> --- 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@redhat.com>