[Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP runtime

[C Bergström via Openmp-dev]

Can we not compound two distinct and unrelated issues. Proper code
formatting impacts everything now and there's no blocker on it needing
to be moved.

I'm strongly in favor of going towards a consistent style which is
similar to llvm/clang. However, if others feel strongly that it's
disruptive I think we should be sensitive to their views. I realize
that Intel is maintaining two trees already and I wouldn't want to
make their job any harder, just for the sake of cosmetic candy.



On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas via Openmp-dev
<openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
>
>
> IMO we should for now stay with the current coding standard as it is
> currently consistently used within the runtime (4 spaces indention, naming
> etc.).
>
>
>
> That said, there was a proposal of moving the OpenMP runtime into
> parallel_libs (which I completely support btw).
>
> If the whole code is then recommitted anyway, I think it is safe to do the
> cleanups in that process.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jonas
>
>
>
> From: Openmp-dev [mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Wilmarth, Terry L via Openmp-dev
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 6:18 PM
> To: openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: [Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP runtime
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> We are considering the possibility of doing a conversion of the OpenMP
> runtime code to better comply with the LLVM coding conventions in the mid-
> to late-September time frame.  This would most likely involve running the
> code through clang-format with the LLVM style option, as well as correcting
> any other glaring violations of the coding conventions.
>
>
>
> It would probably *not* involve renaming anything to adhere to naming
> conventions.
>
>
>
> However, we’ve noted that LLVM’s coding standards document says the
> following:
>
>
>
> “There are some conventions that are not uniformly followed in the code base
> (e.g. the naming convention). This is because they are relatively new, and a
> lot of code was written before they were put in place. Our long term goal is
> for the entire codebase to follow the convention, but we explicitly do not
> want patches that do large-scale reformating of existing code. On the other
> hand, it is reasonable to rename the methods of a class if you’re about to
> change it in some other way. Just do the reformating as a separate commit
> from the functionality change.“
>
>
>
> This would definitely be a large-scale reformatting.
>
>
>
> So I just wanted to get some feedback on this before we make plans to do
> this.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry L. Wilmarth
> terry.l.wilmarth at intel.com   217/403-4251
> Intel/SSG/DPD/TCAR/RAD/Threading Runtimes
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>