|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Clang-format configuration discussion - pt 2
> On 27 Nov 2023, at 15:13, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I had to go back to the thread to realise there was some style issue, the snippet I thought I sent already had argument2 aligned under argument1, like this: e.g.: someLongFunction(argument1, argument2); Even my wording was not really accurate, as I meant: “This one is to align function parameters that overflows the line length, I chose to align them *after* the open bracket to match the current codebase (hopefully)” So to summarize, this value formats the code to have overflowing args/param aligned after the open braket. But I understand that having only one format is not desirable. > > Jan >
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |