[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Modernizing LLVM Coding Style Guide and enforcing Clang-tidy
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 9 12:48:55 PST 2017
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 9 January 2017 at 19:04, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> This is not correct according to the number of “should” and the imperative tone for many aspects of http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#source-code-formatting
> You mistake the tone of the documentation.
Either one of us is mistaken, but I find yourself being fairly confident here…
Try going above the 80 cols and defend it as your personal preference in a review, and let me know how it went.
> There are things that
> cannot be (exceptions, RTTI), things that are important to get right
> (includes vs. forward declaration), things that are preferred
> (c++11-isms) and things that are optional and very much depends on the
> situation. The four items in the list I replied to fall into the
> latter category.
> The tone used for each type is appropriate to its enforcement. If you
> add compiler errors or warnings, it's pretty easy to enforce.
> Everything else will have varying degrees of success, and being
> obnoxious about it has never been, and I hope never will be, our way.
> We don't force people to run clang-format on patches, we ask when it's
> ugly and people do because they believe it's a good thing. When the
> formatting doesn't hurt my eyes, I don't ask for clang-format. I
> certainly won't start asking people to run clang-tidy, though I'd be
> happy if they did. That's personal and with the volume of commits we
> have, that last thing we need is people blocking or reverting patches
> because they didn't conform to personal preferences, even if they were
> encoded in the coding standards.
> I also strongly oppose to encoding personal preferences with a
> stronger wording that it's warranted. Personal is personal. If it's
> legal C++ and it's an appropriate use of the language for the case at
> hand, than it's fine. I couldn't care less if you use "using" or
> "typedef". I can understand both. "Prefer using" is an interesting
> proposition, but refuse patches because they have "typedefs" is silly.
> Honestly, my "coding standards" would be as simple as "do whatever
> Scott Meyers says you should", but the LLVM one is nice, too. Unless
> it's used as a weapon.
More information about the llvm-dev