[lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution

Tue Aug 9 14:49:17 PDT 2016

Great catch!  If refactoring along those lines doesn’t clean up 100% of the cases then it’s worth explicitly breaking up groups of #include directives with comments.  clang-format won’t reorder any non-contiguous groups and it’s a great way to explicitly call out dependencies.

Ideally we should be focused on committing changes along these lines so that there’s no post-format tweaking required to build cleanly again.

Kate Stone k8stone at apple.com <mailto:k8stone at apple.com>
 Xcode Low Level Tools

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I ran clang-format and tried to build and got a bunch of compiler errors.  Most of them are order of include errors.  I fixed everything in the attached patch.  I doubt this will apply cleanly for anyone unless you are at the exact same revision as me, but at least you can look at it and get an idea of what had to change.
> 
> The #include win32.h thing is really annoying and hard for people to remember the right incantation.  I'm going to make a file called Host/PosixApi.h which you can just include, no matter what platform you're on, and everything will just work.  That should clean up a lot of this nonsense.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
> Another thing worth thinking about for the long term is library layering and breaking the massive dependency cycle in LLDB.  Every library currently depends on every other library.  This isn't good for build times, code size, or reusability (especially where size matters like in lldb-server).  I think the massive Python dependency was removed after my work earlier this year.  But I'm not sure what the status of that is now, and there's still the rest of LLDB.
> 
> In the future it would be nice to have a modules build of LLDB.  And sure, we could just have liblldb be one giant module, but that seems to kind of defeat the purpose of modules in the first place.
> 
> For unit tests in particular, it's nice to be able to link in just the set of things you need, and that's difficult / impossible right now.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:00 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM Kate Stone via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> Near-Term Goal: Standardizing on LLVM-style clang-format Rules
> 
> We’ve heard from several in the community that would prefer to have a single code formatting style to further unify the two code bases.  Using clang-format with the default LLVM conventions would simplify code migration, editor configuration, and coding habits for developers who work in multiple LLVM projects.  There are non-trivial implications to reformatting a code base with this much history.  It can obfuscate history and impact downstream projects by complicating merges.  Ideally, it should be done once with as much advance notice as is practical.  Here’s the timeline we’re proposing:
> 
> Today - mechanical reformatting proposed, comment period begins
> 
> To get a preview of what straightforward reformatting of the code looks like, just follow these steps to get a clean copy of the repository and reformat it:
> Check out a clean copy of the existing repository
> Edit .clang-format in the root of the tree, remove all but the line “BasedOnStyle: LLVM”
> Change your current working directory to the root of the tree to reformat
> Double-check to make sure you did step 3 ;-)
> Run the following shell command: "find . -name "*.[c,cpp,h] -exec clang-format -i {} +"
> 
> Aug 20th - comment period closes, final schedule proposed
> TBD (early September?) - patches land in svn
> 
> The purpose of the comment period is to review the straightforward diffs to identify areas where comment pragmas should be used to avoid undesirable formatting (tables laid out in code are a classic example.)  It’s also a time when feedback on the final timetable can be discussed, and any unforeseen implications can be discovered.  We understand that LLDB tends toward relatively long names that may not always work well with the LLVM convention of wrapping at 80 columns.  Worst case scenarios will be evaluated to determine the desired course of action.
> 
> One thing we will need to take a look at is functions which have a very deep indentation level. They have the potential to be made really ugly by clang-format.  The default indentation will be reduced from 4 to 2, so that will help, but I recall we had some lines that began very far to the right.  
> 
> Here's a little bash command shows all lines with >= 50 leading spaces, sorted in descending order by number of leading spaces.
> 
> grep -n '^ \+' . -r -o | awk '{t=length($0);sub(" *$","");printf("%s%d\n", $0, t-length($0));}' |  sort -t: -n -k 3 -r | awk 'BEGIN { FS = ":" } ; { if ($3 >= 50) print $0 }' 
> 
> It's less useful than I was hoping because most of the lines are noise (line breaking in a function parameter list).
> 
> If there were a way to detect indentation level that would be better.  Mostly just to identify places that we should manually inspect after running clang-format.
> <reformat.patch>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160809/b1f60de7/attachment.html>