[LLVMdev] lld coding style
chandlerc at google.com
Wed Oct 8 19:04:56 PDT 2014
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> >> On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> >>>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested
> >>>> every variable in the project!
> >>> If that's what it takes.
> >> If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole
> >> history, I think it's feasible.
> > Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite
> > -Chris
> In case it is not clear, the lld’s convention diverge from LLVM’s in two
> small ways that were designed to overcome bugs in the LLVM conventions.
> When the lld project first started up, I wrote the attached conventions doc
> to detail the reason why lld was different.
> Given the above reasons for the divergence, I would consider a mass
> variable renaming in lld sources would make the lld source base worse.
I see both sides of this, but ultimately would leave the decision to the
primary contributors to LLD. At this point, if Rui is in favor of it, I
think he should make it so (given that several of the other contributor
seem to be in favor as well).
> Yes, having uniforms coding styles is nice. Therefore, I suggest we
> discuss a variable naming convention that fixes LLVM's problems and can be
> adopted by all projects.
Sure, I actually have no problem with this.
I'm going to point out that one of the naming conventions used by LLD has
serious problems: naming variables with a leading underscore puts them
*way* too close to the reserved identifier space. Folks have accidentally
ended up with reserved names quite a few times already.
However, I care much less about the particular naming convention than that
we have a consistent naming convention. And changing LLD to LLVM's style
and then later changing LLVM's style (and all the subprojects) will not
appreciably increase the amount of churn required to the project as a
whole. So I don't think we should hold up progress in the pursuit of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev