Critique this code

[TimCraig]

He's right in that in control_system.c your indenting is inconsistent. Quite a few more comments explaining why things are done and what functions actually do in plain English would be helpful.

I really don't like using multiple returns from a function. You're more likely to screw up your logic when you make changes with multiple returns and it's harder for outsiders to trace that logic. With the compiler warning level set high enough, and I really, really recommend you set it at the highest and fix your code so NO warnings are generated, functions like joystick_deadpan and percentage_limit will generate a warning because technically they are expected to return a value and when you just hit the closing curly brace you're returning void.

Some of these things may seem nit picking but they're what make the difference between good code and four letter word code. And I've spent too much of my life trying to fix the latter kind.

[Ben Englert]

Okay, does anyone know which of the arguments for the Microchip compiler turn the warnings way way up?

I develop under Linux with a makefile so I can edit the arguments freely.

[TimCraig]

-w3 is the highest and gives "errors, warnings, and messages" -w1 is the lowest at errrors only. It looks like it defaults to -w2 because MPLAB doesn't show anything when I set that. That level is errors and warnings. I would use at least -w2 and then fix your code so there are no errors generated. If you don't, you and your successor will have to wade through a ton of warnings and may miss something important.

I'm not sure how stringent C18 is in generating warnings. If you get serious about it, you can run your code through a Lint program and generate a more comprehensive set of warnings. One place I used to work required we crank up the compiler and fix those warnings and then Lint it and fix those. Sometimes it was tough to make both happy but worth it.