More clang tidy #908
More clang tidy #908
Conversation
seanm
requested review from
bmribler,
byrnHDF,
derobins,
fortnern,
jhendersonHDF,
jrmainzer,
qkoziol,
soumagne and
vchoi-hdfgroup
as code owners
| @@ -65,23 +65,23 @@ main(void) | |||
| hid_t string_type; | |||
| hid_t file_id; | |||
| hsize_t chunk_size = 10; | |||
| Particle fill_data[1] = {{"no data", -1, -1, -99.0f, -99.0}}; /* Fill value particle */ | |||
| Particle fill_data[1] = {{"no data", -1, -1, -99.0F, -99.0}}; /* Fill value particle */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't we just change all these to lower case "f" earlier this year?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know. I don't follow HDF5 closely. The clang-tidy docs are here but they don't really give a rationale. I think it's mostly for l which can look a lot like 1. I guess the idea is to consistently use uppercase. I can drop this commit, I don't have strong feelings about it for f vs F, but for l vs L I do think uppercase is better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not entirely sure myself, but I think it was a gcc warning issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've just checked the develop branch, and there is a mix of f and F currently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So using readability-uppercase-literal-suffix as per this patch would have the advantage of making it uniform, even though F vs f is not as useful as l vs L.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We did a quick check and it seems we have no standard for F vs f. We will need to decide so we don't keep churning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have no standard, but I'm fine with upper case F being the standard, especially given the l vs L confusion.
No description provided.