Revert Portable/MikroC Formatting

Skptak commented 10 months ago

Description

Revert PR #768 on MikroC ports

Test Steps

Checklist:

[ ] I have tested my changes. No regression in existing tests.
[ ] I have modified and/or added unit-tests to cover the code changes in this Pull Request.

Related Issue

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

codecov[bot] commented 10 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@a8a17dc). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #882 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage ? 93.67% ======================================= Files ? 6 Lines ? 3177 Branches ? 884 ======================================= Hits ? 2976 Misses ? 94 Partials ? 107 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/pull/882/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FreeRTOS) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/pull/882/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FreeRTOS) | `93.67% <ø> (?)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=FreeRTOS#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

htibosch commented 10 months ago

Hello @Skptak, if it doesn't take too much effort, it would be great if you can explain the reasons why you are creating this PR and other recent PRs.

People like me are wasting time opening the page "File changed" in order to discover if anything essential was changed.

It looks like you're raising a series of PR's that are reverting changes. But please put a link or copy/paste a short text.

Skptak commented 10 months ago

Hello @Skptak, if it doesn't take too much effort, it would be great if you can explain the reasons why you are creating this PR and other recent PRs.

People like me are wasting time opening the page "File changed" in order to discover if anything essential was changed.

It looks like you're raising a series of PR's that are reverting changes. But please put a link or copy/paste a short text.

Hey @htibosch ,this set of PRs for reverting #768 is being done as we cannot determine if the whitespace changes made in the port files cause compilation errors or not. As we cannot determine if these are breaking changes or not the decision was mde to simply revert all formatting changes in the portable directory.

htibosch commented 10 months ago

Hey @htibosch ,this set of PRs for reverting #768 is being done as we cannot determine if the whitespace changes made in the port files cause compilation errors or not. As we cannot determine if these are breaking changes or not the decision was mde to simply revert all formatting changes in the portable directory.

Ok, thank you for the clear explanation :-)