[cfe-dev] clang-format Style for RTEMS

Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Dec 17 04:23:10 PST 2018

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:11 PM Dominique Devienne via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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 closing
> parens being on their own line, similar to how curlies are for blocks, on code
> bases which have used those styles for decades, just because 3 large corporations
> 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 well-formatted
> 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 clang-format over.
> Oleg's reply is friendly and polite, no question there, but what it implies is offending IMHO.

Have you seen https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options
More options, while certainly allows for more customizability, is
always more code, tests,
behavior to preserve and account for going forward.

> FWIW... --DD


> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list