Andrew Morton [off-list ref] writes:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit :
quoted
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
memory block ids next.
...
- int i, ret, section_count = 0;
+ unsigned long i;
...
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned long i;
Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
...
quoted
Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
being mis-understood.
Well. It did say "integer". Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
misleading.
I always thought `i` was for loop `index` not `integer`.
But I've never written any Fortran :)
cheers