On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:35 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > Hi > > There has been a lot of talk about making covoar use more C++ > features. It seems to be an issue on every patch. I almost > replied to Gedare's comment at the bottom of a patch > but decided it needed another thread: > > "I still struggle reviewing this codebase, in part because it is C+C++ > (TM) and in part because I'm not so proficient in C++ to make concrete > recommendations how to write this better. I think, if the goal is > eventually to make this more C++ like code, then new code coming in > should aim to move the needle in that direction rather than continue > to propagate the old ways of doing." > Thanks for taking this on.
> I personally do NOT want to see changes to C++ in one leaf class and > the other architectures not get the same changes. I would prefer to see > all these corrections and base changes in the same style with limited > changes to C-isms. I'm not opposed to the changes but let's take the > Target class one. There are multiple target classes. Changing one > independent of the others isn't a good idea. > This is reasonable to me. > I'd like to see us get a working baseline in and then do something like > sweep std::string through Target* as a single patch. This is easier to > test and review since it would only be C string to std::string. Perhaps > switch to C++ output a file at a time. Redo the report output. Etc. > Discrete chunks instead of piecemeal. > > Covoar has spent years broken and some is from changing working > things to do things "a better way" with no baseline to check against. > We need to get a baseline. > > Please. Let's get a working baseline and then approach this more > methodically. No one is going to suffer from seeing a C string a little > while longer. :) > I'm fine, as long as there is a plan in place and some clear directions. It would help to have tickets to organize the path forward. I'm willing to oblige continued use of C'ism for now, but I want to know the plan and maybe a deadline of sorts by which I can start to be picky again :) I don't like to be in limbo. > Thanks. > > --joel > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
