Re: CVS commit: src/lib/libc/time

[Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost>]

Am 26.03.2022 um 00:50 schrieb Tobias Nygren:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 00:31:45 +0100
> Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> wrote:
>
> > > > localtime.c: add back storage class 'register'
> > > >
> > > > This reduces the differences to the upstream code.
> > >
> > > I don't know why you did that. It is as simple to sed -e 's/register //g'
> > > in upstream when you diff. Adding register is useless; these days it is
> > > mostly ignored by compilers, except you can't &...
> >
> > I thought that having a small diff to the upstream code was more
> > important than a few saved keywords.  If I was wrong, I can of course
> > revert it.
>
> Can we keep it as-is, but #define register to empty at the top of the file?

I don't think the compiler's view on the code is the main point of this
discussion.  At least, GCC generates the same code on x86_64, with or
without 'register', so it doesn't seem to care.

To me, the more interesting question is how human readers should deal
with the code.

If this piece of code had originated in the NetBSD tree, I wouldn't have
added the 'register' keywords, I would have just indented the code
according to KNF.

But, most of this code is copied from the tz project, therefore our goal
should be to make the diff minimal, in order to benefit from the testing
of other projects using the same code.  In this case, it means to keep
the indentation exactly as inconsistent as upstream and also to keep the
keyword 'register'.  The remaining diff is still large enough to consume
some developer time, containing a few fixes for WARNS=6 and for the lint
checks.

Roland