[PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Przemek Kitszel]

Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
and _Generic() use.

Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
should be rather avoided in new source code.

Signed-off-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 7d16f863edf1..7f01bc8be2de 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -5839,6 +5839,8 @@ sub process {
 #CamelCase
 			if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ &&
 			    $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
+#Ignore C keywords
+			    $var !~ /_Static_assert|_Generic/ &&
 #Ignore some autogenerated defines and enum values
 			    $var !~ /^(?:[A-Z]+_){1,5}[A-Z]{1,3}[a-z]/ &&
 #Ignore Page<foo> variants
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
> and _Generic() use.
> 
> Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
> should be rather avoided in new source code.
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -5839,6 +5839,8 @@ sub process {
>  #CamelCase
>  			if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ &&
>  			    $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
> +#Ignore C keywords
> +			    $var !~ /_Static_assert|_Generic/ &&

You'll need

			    $var != /^(?:_Static_assert|_Generic)$/ &&

to avoid words that contain either


>  #Ignore some autogenerated defines and enum values
>  			    $var !~ /^(?:[A-Z]+_){1,5}[A-Z]{1,3}[a-z]/ &&
>  #Ignore Page<foo> variants

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 11/28/23 01:46, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>> Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
>> and _Generic() use.
>>
>> Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
>> should be rather avoided in new source code.
> []
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @@ -5839,6 +5839,8 @@ sub process {
>>   #CamelCase
>>   			if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ &&
>>   			    $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
>> +#Ignore C keywords
>> +			    $var !~ /_Static_assert|_Generic/ &&
> 
> You'll need
> 
> 			    $var != /^(?:_Static_assert|_Generic)$/ &&
> 
> to avoid words that contain either

you are correct, thanks

also good to use non-capturing group :)

I will resend after usual 24h

> 
> 
>>   #Ignore some autogenerated defines and enum values
>>   			    $var !~ /^(?:[A-Z]+_){1,5}[A-Z]{1,3}[a-z]/ &&
>>   #Ignore Page<foo> variants
> 

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 11:25 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 11/28/23 01:46, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > > Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
> > > and _Generic() use.
> > > 
> > > Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
> > > should be rather avoided in new source code.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > @@ -5839,6 +5839,8 @@ sub process {
> > >   #CamelCase
> > >   			if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ &&
> > >   			    $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
> > > +#Ignore C keywords
> > > +			    $var !~ /_Static_assert|_Generic/ &&
> > 
> > You'll need
> > 
> > 			    $var != /^(?:_Static_assert|_Generic)$/ &&
> > 
> > to avoid words that contain either
> 
> you are correct, thanks
> 
> also good to use non-capturing group :),  for

Well mostly correct minus the mindless typing of != instead of !~

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 11:25 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 11/28/23 01:46, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > > Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
> > > and _Generic() use.
> > > 
> > > Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
> > > should be rather avoided in new source code.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > @@ -5839,6 +5839,8 @@ sub process {
> > >   #CamelCase
> > >   			if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ &&
> > >   			    $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
> > > +#Ignore C keywords
> > > +			    $var !~ /_Static_assert|_Generic/ &&
> > 
> > You'll need
> > 
> > 			    $var != /^(?:_Static_assert|_Generic)$/ &&

Hi again.

btw:  Looks like adding _Pragma would be useful too.

$ git grep -ohP '\b_\w+' -- '*.[ch]' | \
  sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | \
  grep -P '[a-z][A-Z]|[A-Z][a-z]' | \
  head -30
    377 __Value
    206 __pH2CCmd
    152 __pTxDesc
     78 _Pragma
     54 __pRxDesc
     52 __pRxStatusDesc
     50 _Generic
     48 _Static_assert
     41 _PyUnicode_FromString
     30 _pEleStart
     29 _PyLong_FromLong
     26 _NonStandardParameter
     24 _txOff
     24 _TransportAddress
     23 _txOn
     23 _Bool
     22 _Lxx
     21 _Exx
     19 _min_uV
     18 _StateArray
     18 _NonClockInfoArray
     18 _ClockInfoArray
     16 _8Mx32
     16 _32Mx16
     16 _16Mx32
     16 _16Mx16
     15 _REGIc
     13 _step_uV
     13 _Set_Drv_Extra
     13 __PageMovable

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic use

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On 27/11/2023 16.18, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
> and _Generic() use.
> 

_Generic I understand, because that can reasonably be used in new macros.

But is there ever any reason for introducing new uses of _Static_assert
when we already have the static_assert() wrapper? Shouldn't people use
that instead of the raw keyword?

> Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
> should be rather avoided in new source code.

... in exactly the same way that we have 'typedef _Bool bool;' and then
prefer people to spell it 'bool'.

Rasmus