From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196B2202BB for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:39:33 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=URpEEmYOek8uG83o x05MTmM60wmzEfOgaUmyO1oxIgbVh+62HMXM96/dnIP8u00BHQDFeCcK96fshJqp jPy4lXgbcfPaE4OsApCeSknV07hHtZNAlJqN9/mBy+XEr/6UK/jvaZK0kB+sYDr2 tw4yQCG8CL1YnJfMa2Ek2bLIQXU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=6vWV/2XmzZbkEuS9N2Ez46 b9o7M=; b=YxOgeP1DT1B9cA3dbcKZxqUKNCwEAk0ZNx5YeG1iZDdp2vDh7Ff8zz hU4oNdlJJBU/nEqITqvXoO3O2VGz3DxZ+qm2Z4gqfD0Hz3UwvTAofEqRNSBfwaji 7PP6a8ZUKZV2JDcL7WjrIHua+6GOWfKkWsOn50JgBfmjtyCrPCg80= Received: (qmail 21750 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2019 23:39:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21739 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2019 23:39:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: shared-ano163.rev.nazwa.pl Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:30:57 +0100 (CET) From: Rafal Luzynski To: TAMUKI Shoichi , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Cc: Felix Yan Message-ID: <507220783.41208.1552951857797@poczta.nazwa.pl> In-Reply-To: <201903171032.AA04288@tamuki.linet.gr.jp> References: <1025917329.248288.1552650514094@poczta.nazwa.pl> <201903171032.AA04288@tamuki.linet.gr.jp> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] time/tst-strftime2.c: Make the file easier to maintain. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 17.03.2019 11:32 TAMUKI Shoichi wrote: > > Hello Rafal-san, > > From: Rafal Luzynski > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] time/tst-strftime2.c: Make the file easier to > maintain. > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:48:34 +0100 (CET) > > [...] > > diff --git a/time/tst-strftime2.c b/time/tst-strftime2.c > > index 3dca2a9..bf5a66d 100644 > > --- a/time/tst-strftime2.c > > +++ b/time/tst-strftime2.c > > @@ -19,8 +19,10 @@ > > . */ > > > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > > > I care about the order of including header lines. Because including > stdbool.h and assert.h are used during the reference table creation, > the following order is preferred. > > Recommend instead: > > | @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ > | . */ > | > | #include > | +#include > | +#include > | #include > | #include > | #include I don't mind changing this as you suggest but I thought that includes should be kept alphabetically. I don't know what is the preferred convention in glibc. Will anybody help here? > [...] > > @@ -56,10 +75,13 @@ mkreftable (void) > > for (j = 0; j < array_length (formats); j++) > > for (k = 0; k < array_length (dates); k++) > > { > > - if (i == 0) > > + if (i == 0) /* ja_JP */ > > { > > - sprintf (era, "%s", (k < 2) ? "\xe6\x98\xad\xe5\x92\x8c" > > - : "\xe5\xb9\xb3\xe6\x88\x90"); > > + if (is_before (&dates[k], 8, 1, 1989)) > > + era = "\xe6\x98\xad\xe5\x92\x8c"; > > + else > > + era = "\xe5\xb9\xb3\xe6\x88\x90"; > > + > > Please delete the above blank one line. OK > > @@ -72,16 +94,20 @@ mkreftable (void) > > sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d\xe5\xb9\xb4", era, yrj[k]); > > } > > } > > - else if (i == 1) > > + else if (i == 1) /* lo_LA */ > > { > > - sprintf (era, "\xe0\xba\x9e\x2e\xe0\xba\xaa\x2e "); > > + era = "\xe0\xba\x9e\x2e\xe0\xba\xaa\x2e "; > > sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d", era, yrb[k]); > > } > > - else > > + else if (i == 2) /* th_TH */ > > { > > - sprintf (era, "\xe0\xb8\x9e\x2e\xe0\xb8\xa8\x2e "); > > + era = "\xe0\xb8\x9e\x2e\xe0\xb8\xa8\x2e "; > > sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d", era, yrb[k]); > > } > > + else > > + { > > + assert (0); /* Unreachable. */ > > + } > > } > > } > > > > Braces surrounding assert are redundant. > > Recommend instead: > > | @@ -72,16 +93,18 @@ mkreftable (void) > | sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d\xe5\xb9\xb4", era, yrj[k]); > | } > | } > | - else if (i == 1) > | + else if (i == 1) /* lo_LA */ > | { > | - sprintf (era, "\xe0\xba\x9e\x2e\xe0\xba\xaa\x2e "); > | + era = "\xe0\xba\x9e\x2e\xe0\xba\xaa\x2e "; > | sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d", era, yrb[k]); > | } > | - else > | + else if (i == 2) /* th_TH */ > | { > | - sprintf (era, "\xe0\xb8\x9e\x2e\xe0\xb8\xa8\x2e "); > | + era = "\xe0\xb8\x9e\x2e\xe0\xb8\xa8\x2e "; > | sprintf (ref[i][j][k], "%s%d", era, yrb[k]); > | } > | + else > | + assert (0); /* Unreachable. */ > | } > | } > | Again I don't mind this but there are different conventions and I am not sure what is preferred in glibc. To be honest, I prefer to remove these braces. Thank you for your feedback, and regards, Rafal