[lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution
Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 12 05:23:38 PDT 2016
On 12 August 2016 at 00:54, Chris Lattner via lldb-dev
<lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I recommend approaching this in three steps:
> 1) get the less-controversial changes done that Greg was outlining.
> 2) start a discussion in the llvm community about the concept of a
> member/global prefix.
> 2a) the community could agree that llvm-as-a-whole should move to prefixes
> or otherwise change the camel case policy.
> 2b) the community could agree that the existing policies are preferred
> 3) LLDB moves to whatever is the end result of the discussion.
> I guess what I’m saying is that since the opinions about this are very
> strong, and because we haven’t really had that debate in the LLVM community,
> that it would be bad to proactively move to the LLVM style, simply to have
> to move back later. Iff the (sure to be extensive) community discussion
> settles on the idea that prefixes are the wrong thing, then LLDB should
> remove them to be consistent.
In terms of the formatting of tests, I did some more research on this.
I think the changes needed to be made to the test suite are generally
trivial to fix (e.g. r278490), but I don't think we can avoid a manual
intervention. CommentPragmas does not seem to be a silver bullet -- it
does prevent clang-format from breaking the comment, but it does not
prevent it from moving the whole comment to a new line. That said,
when I reformatted the test sources with CommentPragmas set, the
number of failures went down to 80 (from about 150)...
I believe we should still perform the reformatting of the tests, at
least to standardize on the 2 space indent (in fact we should consider
doing the same for the python code as well, I don't know what's the
situation there in llvm land), but it can be done later. It will make
the period while the code is in flux longer, but hopefully not too
long. Also the modifications will be independent of the main reformat,
so it will still be true that a single source file only got
More information about the lldb-dev