svn commit: r336503 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6

[Devin Teske]

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 1:18 PM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 13:12 -0700, Devin Teske wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 19:53 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> +++ head/sys/netinet/sctp_asconf.c    Thu Jul 19 19:33:42 2018        (r336503)
>>>>>   static struct mbuf *
>>>>> -sctp_asconf_error_response(uint32_t id, uint16_t cause, uint8_t *error_tlv,
>>>>> +sctp_asconf_error_response(uint32_t id, uint16_t cause, uint8_t * error_tlv,
>>>> This looks strange now.  In C, asterisk is usually placed by the variable.
>>> "usually" may be true of freebsd, but most places I've worked consider
>>> the * (and & in c++) to be more associated with the type being declared
>>> than with the variable name, thus they get snugged up against the type
>>> info, not the var name. Putting the * or & with the var name leads to
>>> particularly bad constructs such as 
>>> 
>>>  int a, *b;
>>> 
>>> which, for maximal clarity, should be:
>>> 
>>>   int  a;
>>>   int* b;
>>> 
>> Are we free to prefer the former in C if that's how we've been coding in C for 20+ years?
> 
> Only if I'm free to consider that kind of sarcasm to be a completely
> inappropriate response to what I said.
> 

I sincerely believe you when you say you've worked at places that use "int* b".

I use "int *b;" and I want to know if I am free to use that for the stated reasons.
-- 
Devin