[cfe-dev] clang-format Style for RTEMS
Dominique Devienne via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Dec 17 04:16:10 PST 2018
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 12:40 AM Oleg Smolsky via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > 2. In line 32, the ")" at the end of the parameter list needs to be in
> > a new row, but this doesn't seem to be supported in clang-format.
> > 4. In line 44: If the function call is split into multiple rows, the
> > ");" should always be in a new row.
> I don't believe there is an option to do that.
> Generally, the tool supports LLVM/Google/WebKit/Mozilla styles fully and
> there is a limited set of common/known tweaks that further customize the
> behavior. One can dream up any number of rules that pertain to
> whitespace in different parts of the C++ syntax, but it would be an
> uphill battle for you to get such changes into the code.
Which is really disappointing from an OSS project...
That a new language like Go forces a given style is OK,
since their "one-true-format" existing from the beginning of the language.
But that clang-format rejects even the idea of a widely used style of
parens being on their own line, similar to how curlies are for blocks, on
bases which have used those styles for decades, just because 3 large
use different styles, is a clear sign something's not right here.
Options to support such a style were discussed several times on this list,
and I haven't
been lurking for very long either, so it's not like this is a one-off and
seldom used style.
Adopting clang-format on a codebase should strive for minimal changes to
code using a given local style guide, minimising diffs at the SCM level.
It's also frankly a bit condescending to imply all those peoples (and their
millions of lines of code,
quite literally) are using somehow a "wrong style" not "worthy" of changing
Oleg's reply is friendly and polite, no question there, but what it implies
is offending IMHO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev