Re: Clang-format configuration discussion - pt 2

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 27.11.2023 15:58, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 27 Nov 2023, at 12:20, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 24.11.2023 15:52, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> On 24 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 23.11.2023 15:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>> Let’s continue the discussion about clang-format configuration, this is 
>>>>> part 2, previous discussions are:
>>>>>
>>>>> - 
>>>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-11/msg00498.html
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find the serie introducing clang-format here:
>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/cover/20231031132304.2573924-1-luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx/
>>>>> and there is also a patch linked to my gitlab account where you can find 
>>>>> the output for the hypervisor code.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a full list of configurables and to find the possible values for 
>>>>> them, please refer to this page:
>>>>> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Our coding style doesn’t mention anything about alignment, shall we add a 
>>>>> new section?
>>>>> I can send patches when we reach agreement on each of these rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> QualifierAlignment: Custom
>>>>> QualifierOrder: ['static', 'inline', 'const', 'volatile', 'type']
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> For “QualifierAlignment” I chose Custom in order to apply in 
>>>>> “QualifierOrder” an order for the
>>>>> qualifiers that match the current codebase, we could specify also “Leave” 
>>>>> in order to keep
>>>>> them as they are.
>>>>
>>>> Where do attributes go in this sequence?
>>>
>>> I think function declaration/definition and variables.
>>
>> How does this relate to my question? I asked about the sequence of elements
>> listed for QualifierOrder:, where attributes don't appear at all right now.
> 
> Sorry, I misread your question, attributes are like invisible for the tool, 
> they can be placed wherever between
> each of the QualifierOrder items.

Hoho, one thing where various options are tolerated.

>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> AlignAfterOpenBracket: Align
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This one is to align function parameters that overflows the line length, 
>>>>> I chose to align them
>>>>> to the open bracket to match the current codebase (hopefully)
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g.:
>>>>> someLongFunction(argument1,
>>>>>                               argument2);
>>>>
>>>> The above matches neither of the two generally permitted styles:
>>>>
>>>>   someLongFunction(argument1,
>>>>                    argument2);
>>>>
>>>>   someLongFunction(
>>>>       argument1,
>>>>       argument2);
>>>>
>>>> Then again from its name I would infer this isn't just about function
>>>> arguments?
>>>
>>> I think it applies to parameters and arguments of functions and macro, 
>>> given the description in the docs.
>>>
>>> I see your two snippets above but I’ve always found at least on arm a 
>>> predominance of
>>> the style above for functions, so arguments aligned after the opening 
>>> bracket, for macros
>>> there is a mix.
>>
>> The latter "above" refers to which form exactly? The one you originally
>> spelled out, or the former of what my reply had?
> 
> In my reply I was referring to the one I originally spelled out.

But that's properly malformed, for not aligning argument2 with argument1.
Where are such constructs commonly used? I just took one example (cpuerrata.c)
and only found my first form of wrapping.

Jan