[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Modernizing our use of auto

David Blaikie via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 6 11:39:34 PST 2018

I think modernize-use-auto is good for the problem we aren't discussion and
maybe a problem we don't have (using auto not enough and wanting to migrate
code to use it more). A tool that gives a "hey, maybe your use of auto here
is more for writability than readability" would be a different thing, and
probably a bit challenging to tune it's false positive rate to not be
annoying etc.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 2:13 AM Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org wrote:

> I agree with George here, the current implementation of modernize-use-auto
> <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.html> uses
> pretty much the same rules as described in our coding standards which we
> all agree on, mainly:
> - iterators (begin, end)
> - cast expressions
> - new expression
> Ofc there are more cases where type is obvious and where we would like to
> use auto, but automating the part that modernize-use-auto can do is enough
> to cover most of the cases.
> Cheers
> Piotr
> czw., 6 gru 2018 o 08:46 George Burgess IV via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> napisał(a):
>> So the problem becomes one of seeing if people will accept `auto` rules
>> that don't require substantial amounts of thought.
>> Personally, I see this like our use of clang-format. It might not use my
>> favorite color of paint, but it's uniform, automatic, and it lets me
>> entirely forget about tons of style nits, so I love it to death. Hence, if
>> we need to start with "no auto, except in this small set of trivially OK
>> and machine-verifiable cases, which we'll consider expanding this as need
>> arises," to get to that, I'd be all for it.
>> I realize that many devs probably strongly disagree with me here, but
>> that's my 2c.
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:26 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:
>>> > On Dec 4, 2018, at 10:59 AM, George Burgess IV <
>>> george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I think people are too eager to use `auto` because it is easy to
>>> write but it makes the types substantially harder for the reader to
>>> understand
>>> >
>>> > I'm probably the Nth person to ask this, but what keeps us from
>>> promoting the use of a clang-tidy-powered tool that basically emits fixits
>>> of s/auto/actual_type/?
>>> Because the tool would need to apply judgement to when this makes
>>> sense.  If we can’t write an algorithm in coding standards.html to be
>>> prescriptive about when to use auto, then I don’t think we can automate
>>> this.
>>> -Chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181206/b6304537/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list