Declaration Order
-----------------
-Here is the order in which code should be laid out in a file:
+Here is the preferred order in which code should be laid out in a file:
- commented program name and one-line description
- commented author name and email address(es)
- commented GPL boilerplate
- commented longer description / notes for the program (if needed)
- - #includes and #defines
+ - #includes of .h files with angle brackets (<>) around them
+ - #includes of .h files with quotes ("") around them
+ - #defines (if any, note the section below titled "Avoid the Preprocessor")
- const and global variables
- function declarations (if necessary)
- function implementations
\s\s\s\sif (expr) {\n\tstmt; --ick.) The only exception to this rule is
multi-line comments that use an asterisk at the beginning of each line, i.e.:
- /t/*
- /t * This is a block comment.
- /t * Note that it has multiple lines
- /t * and that the beginning of each line has a tab plus a space
- /t * except for the opening '/*' line where the slash
- /t * is used instead of a space.
- /t */
+ \t/*
+ \t * This is a block comment.
+ \t * Note that it has multiple lines
+ \t * and that the beginning of each line has a tab plus a space
+ \t * except for the opening '/*' line where the slash
+ \t * is used instead of a space.
+ \t */
Furthermore, The preference is that tabs be set to display at four spaces
wide, but the beauty of using only tabs (and not spaces) at the beginning of
do {
+If you have long logic statements that need to be wrapped, then uncuddling
+the bracket to improve readability is allowed. Generally, this style makes
+it easier for reader to notice that 2nd and following lines are still
+inside 'if':
+
+ if (some_really_long_checks && some_other_really_long_checks
+ && some_more_really_long_checks
+ && even_more_of_long_checks
+ ) {
+ do_foo_now;
Spacing around Parentheses
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Put a space between C keywords and left parens, but not between
-function names and the left paren that starts it's parameter list (whether it
-is being declared or called). Examples:
+Put a space between C keywords and left parens, but not between function names
+and the left paren that starts it's parameter list (whether it is being
+declared or called). Examples:
Don't do this:
}
+Labels
+~~~~~~
+
+Labels should start at the beginning of the line, not indented to the block
+level (because they do not "belong" to block scope, only to whole function).
+
+ if (foo) {
+ stmt;
+ label:
+ stmt2;
+ stmt;
+ }
+
+(Putting label at position 1 prevents diff -p from confusing label for function
+name, but it's not a policy of busybox project to enforce such a minor detail).
+
Variable and Function Names
Exceptions:
- - Enums, macros, and constant variables should all be in upper-case with
- words optionally seperatedy by underscores (i.e. FIFOTYPE, ISBLKDEV()).
+ - Enums, macros, and constant variables are occasionally written in all
+ upper-case with words optionally separated by underscores (i.e. FIFO_TYPE,
+ ISBLKDEV()).
- Nobody is going to get mad at you for using 'pvar' as the name of a
variable that is a pointer to 'var'.
-Note: The Busybox codebase is very much a mixture of code gathered from a
-variety of sources. This explains why the current codebase contains such a
-hodge-podge of different naming styles (Java, Pascal, K&R, just-plain-weird,
-etc.). The K&R guideline explained above should therefore be used on new files
-that are added to the repository. Furthermore, the maintainer of an existing
-file that uses alternate naming conventions should -- at his own convenience
--- convert those names over to K&R style; converting variable names is a very
-low priority task. Perhaps in the future we will include some magical Perl
-script that can go through and convert variable names, left as an exercise for
-the reader for now.
-For the time being, if you want to do a search-and-replace of a variable name
-in different files, do the following in the busybox directory:
+Converting to K&R
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The Busybox codebase is very much a mixture of code gathered from a variety of
+sources. This explains why the current codebase contains such a hodge-podge of
+different naming styles (Java, Pascal, K&R, just-plain-weird, etc.). The K&R
+guideline explained above should therefore be used on new files that are added
+to the repository. Furthermore, the maintainer of an existing file that uses
+alternate naming conventions should, at his own convenience, convert those
+names over to K&R style. Converting variable names is a very low priority
+task.
+
+If you want to do a search-and-replace of a single variable name in different
+files, you can do the following in the busybox directory:
$ perl -pi -e 's/\bOldVar\b/new_var/g' *.[ch]
+If you want to convert all the non-K&R vars in your file all at once, follow
+these steps:
+
+ - In the busybox directory type 'examples/mk2knr.pl files-to-convert'. This
+ does not do the actual conversion, rather, it generates a script called
+ 'convertme.pl' that shows what will be converted, giving you a chance to
+ review the changes beforehand.
+
+ - Review the 'convertme.pl' script that gets generated in the busybox
+ directory and remove / edit any of the substitutions in there. Please
+ especially check for false positives (strings that should not be
+ converted).
+
+ - Type './convertme.pl same-files-as-before' to perform the actual
+ conversion.
+
+ - Compile and see if everything still works.
+
+Please be aware of changes that have cascading effects into other files. For
+example, if you're changing the name of something in, say utility.c, you
+should probably run 'examples/mk2knr.pl utility.c' at first, but when you run
+the 'convertme.pl' script you should run it on _all_ files like so:
+'./convertme.pl *.[ch]'.
+
Avoid The Preprocessor
Don't do this:
- #define var 80
+ #define CONST 80
Do this instead, when the variable is in a header file and will be used in
- several source files:
-
- const int var = 80;
-
- Or do this when the variable is used only in a single source file:
+ several source files:
- static const int var = 80;
+ enum { CONST = 80 };
-Declaring variables as '[static] const' gives variables an actual type and
-makes the compiler do type checking for you; the preprocessor does _no_ type
-checking whatsoever, making it much more error prone. Declaring variables with
-'[static] const' also makes debugging programs much easier since the value of
-the variable can be easily queried and displayed.
+Although enum may look ugly to some people, it is better for code size.
+With "const int" compiler may fail to optimize it out and will reserve
+a real storage in rodata for it! (Hopefully, newer gcc will get better
+at it...). With "define", you have slight risk of polluting namespace
+(#define doesn't allow you to redefine the name in the inner scopes),
+and complex "define" are evaluated each time they uesd, not once
+at declarations like enums. Also, the preprocessor does _no_ type checking
+whatsoever, making it much more error prone.
The Folly of Macros
}
Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros. They provide type
-safety, have no length limitations, no formatting limitations, and under gcc
-they are as cheap as macros. Besides, really long macros with backslashes at
-the end of each line are ugly as sin.
+safety, have no length limitations, no formatting limitations, have an actual
+return value, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros. Besides, really long
+macros with backslashes at the end of each line are ugly as sin.
The Folly of #ifdef
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain. Don't do it.
-Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define 'static inline'
-functions, (or *maybe* macros), which are used in the code.
+Instead, put your ifdefs at the top of your .c file (or in a header), and
+conditionally define 'static inline' functions, (or *maybe* macros), which are
+used in the code.
Don't do this:
ret = my_func(bar, baz);
if (!ret)
return -1;
- #ifdef BB_FEATURE_FUNKY
+ #ifdef CONFIG_FEATURE_FUNKY
maybe_do_funky_stuff(bar, baz);
#endif
(in .h header file)
- #ifdef BB_FEATURE_FUNKY
- static inline void maybe_do_funky_stuff (int bar, int baz)
+ #if ENABLE_FEATURE_FUNKY
+ static inline void maybe_do_funky_stuff(int bar, int baz)
{
/* lotsa code in here */
}
#else
- static inline void maybe_do_funky_stuff (int bar, int baz) {}
+ static inline void maybe_do_funky_stuff(int bar, int baz) {}
#endif
(in the .c source file)
Testing String Equivalence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-There's a right way and a wrong way to test for sting equivalence with
+There's a right way and a wrong way to test for string equivalence with
strcmp():
The wrong way:
certain library functions are (mis)used. The following table offers a summary
of some of the more notorious troublemakers:
-function overflows preferred
-----------------------------------------
-strcpy dest string strncpy
-strcat dest string strncat
-gets string it gets fgets
-getwd buf string getcwd
-[v]sprintf str buffer [v]snprintf
-realpath path buffer use with pathconf
-[vf]scanf its arguments just avoid it
+function overflows preferred
+-------------------------------------------------
+strcpy dest string safe_strncpy
+strncpy may fail to 0-terminate dst safe_strncpy
+strcat dest string strncat
+gets string it gets fgets
+getwd buf string getcwd
+[v]sprintf str buffer [v]snprintf
+realpath path buffer use with pathconf
+[vf]scanf its arguments just avoid it
The above is by no means a complete list. Be careful out there.
Avoid Big Static Buffers
------------------------
-First, some background to put this discussion in context: Static buffers look
+First, some background to put this discussion in context: static buffers look
like this in code:
/* in a .c file outside any functions */
- static char *buffer[BUFSIZ]; /* happily used by any function in this file,
+ static char buffer[BUFSIZ]; /* happily used by any function in this file,
but ick! big! */
The problem with these is that any time any busybox app is run, you pay a
A macro is declared in busybox.h that implements compile-time selection
between xmalloc() and stack creation, so you can code the line in question as
- RESERVE_BB_BUFFER(buffer, BUFSIZ);
+ RESERVE_CONFIG_BUFFER(buffer, BUFSIZ);
and the right thing will happen, based on your configuration.
+Another relatively new trick of similar nature is explained
+in keep_data_small.txt.
+
Miscellaneous Coding Guidelines
formatting, options, etc.), model it after the equivalent GNU program.
Doesn't matter how that program behaves on some other flavor of *NIX; doesn't
matter what the POSIX standard says or doesn't say, just model Busybox
-programs after their GNU counterparts and nobody has to get hurt.
+programs after their GNU counterparts and it will make life easier on (nearly)
+everyone.
The only time we deviate from emulating the GNU behavior is when:
would be required, lots more memory would be used, etc.)
- The difference is minor or cosmetic
-A note on the 'cosmetic' case: Output differences might be considered
+A note on the 'cosmetic' case: output differences might be considered
cosmetic, but if the output is significant enough to break other scripts that
use the output, it should really be fixed.
if (foo)
stmt1;
new_line();
- stmt2
+ stmt2;
stmt3;
And the resulting behavior of your program would totally bewilder you. (Don't
Furthermore, you should put a single comment (not necessarily one line, just
one comment) before the block, rather than commenting each and every line.
-There is an optimal ammount of commenting that a program can have; you can
+There is an optimal amount of commenting that a program can have; you can
comment too much as well as too little.
-A picture is really worth a thousand words here, so here is an example that
-illustrates emphasizing logical blocks:
+A picture is really worth a thousand words here, the following example
+illustrates how to emphasize logical blocks:
- while (line = get_line_from_file(fp)) {
+ while (line = xmalloc_fgets(fp)) {
/* eat the newline, if any */
- if (line[strlen(line)-1] == '\n') {
- line[strlen(line)-1] = '\0';
- }
+ chomp(line);
/* ignore blank lines */
if (strlen(file_to_act_on) == 0) {
/* clean up */
free(line);
}
+
+
+Processing Options with getopt
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If your applet needs to process command-line switches, please use getopt32() to
+do so. Numerous examples can be seen in many of the existing applets, but
+basically it boils down to two things: at the top of the .c file, have this
+line in the midst of your #includes, if you need to parse long options:
+
+ #include <getopt.h>
+
+Then have long options defined:
+
+ static const char <applet>_longopts[] ALIGN1 =
+ "list\0" No_argument "t"
+ "extract\0" No_argument "x"
+ ;
+
+And a code block similar to the following near the top of your applet_main()
+routine:
+
+ char *str_b;
+
+ opt_complementary = "cryptic_string";
+ applet_long_options = <applet>_longopts; /* if you have them */
+ opt = getopt32(argc, argv, "ab:c", &str_b);
+ if (opt & 1) {
+ handle_option_a();
+ }
+ if (opt & 2) {
+ handle_option_b(str_b);
+ }
+ if (opt & 4) {
+ handle_option_c();
+ }
+
+If your applet takes no options (such as 'init'), there should be a line
+somewhere in the file reads:
+
+ /* no options, no getopt */
+
+That way, when people go grepping to see which applets need to be converted to
+use getopt, they won't get false positives.
+
+For more info and examples, examine getopt32.c, tar.c, wget.c etc.