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

Tue Aug 9 01:23:03 PDT 2016

Pragmatically and just my view - If the research is open and there's a
plan to integrate it back I'm empathetic. If it's closed and just an
outside fork, I don't care what you do and it shouldn't block an open
source project. Long term plans start somewhere - so even if this
clean-up doesn't happen now, I think it makes sense to figure out who
will impact and break it into small steps.

Again just my view, but I strongly dislike some of the coding
practices being employed. I'd love to see some things which I consider
"fugly hacks" removed.

In terms of the actual logistics - if the entire clean-up is done as a
single commit - it should be fairly easy for that to rebase against an
out-of-tree fork. Worst case the research just isn't in sync with
upstream, but not all research projects track git HEAD or svn ToT..

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas
<Hahnfeld at itc.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> As already stated I think that we currently have a consistent coding style inside the runtime.
> I agree that aligning to LLVM/Clang should be the long-term goal but IMO "cosmetic candy" doesn't warrant a full reformat in place. (I'm supported here by the LLVM coding standard itself!)
>
> To put up more practical reasons: There is quite some research and experimental implementation based on this repository.
> It will be hard as hell to update and work with them when we touch every single line with whitespace throughout the code.
>
> Regards,
> Jonas
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C Bergström [mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 8:33 AM
>> To: Hahnfeld, Jonas
>> Cc: Wilmarth, Terry L; LLVM-OpenMP (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP
>> runtime
>>
>> I can understand why Intel would be strongly against a larger format, can you
>> give some data points for your use case? Besides just a "feeling" what's the
>> rationale for strongly against
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Hahnfeld, Jonas <Hahnfeld at itc.rwth-
>> aachen.de> wrote:
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > I didn't: I'm currently in favor of NOT doing the conversion as also said in
>> the coding standards. Full stop.
>> >
>> > However I just wanted to express that I'm not against (more precisely:
>> strongly support) to do the reformatting when moving the code base
>> anyway.
>> > I agree that this is a different matter and has to be discussed separately but
>> it may be a compromise on this discussion.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jonas
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: C Bergström [mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 8:20 AM
>> >> To: Hahnfeld, Jonas
>> >> Cc: Wilmarth, Terry L; LLVM-OpenMP (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)
>> >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] LLVM coding conventions an the OpenMP
>> >> runtime
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> >