[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding support for clang-format making further code modifying changes
Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 27 07:03:01 PDT 2021
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:43 PM Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion, and especially
> to MyDeveloperDay for getting this started. Now that discussion on
> this RFC seems to have died down, I think it's worth circling back to
> see if we have consensus to move forward. From reading the threads, I
> think Renato summarized the consensus position nicely:
I agree with the following items:
> * Breaking changes off by default, override behaviour with configuration
> * All behaviour must be controlled by a configuration flag with
> options explicit on doc/config
> * Make explicit some options are breaking (comment/naming)
I disagree with this one:
> * Backwards compatibility is pursued, but can be broken in case of clear
Which I think is also tangential to the current RFC, and IMO should be
treated in a separate discussion if necessary (this is a fundamental
problem with how clang-format is designed).
> Unless there is strong opposition to this, then I'd say MyDeveloperDay
> has an answer to their RFC. Any disagreement?
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:37 AM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 5:24 PM Renato Golin via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 15:55, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> I agree that that was probably not obvious or stated very clearly
> anywhere - clang-format for years was basically developed by a small team
> without much interest in input by the rest of the world, for a very
> specific use case.
> >>> At the time we did not do a great job at spreading our thoughts with
> the world, as a lot of discussions were in person.
> >> I think there's more to that than what was created by the people who
> created it.
> >> After being used extensively by people around the world, clang-format
> has perhaps grown to something that the original team did not envision.
> >> However, as a public clang tool, and as part of the LLVM "family", it's
> no longer "a tool used by the team that created it", and not even "a tool
> used by LLVM developers". It is truly a public tool maintained by the LLVM
> >> As such, I think we shouldn't restrict the design goals to the original
> design, or to what a small sub-group uses it for. Clang-format is an
> official tool like other visible stuff and should have the same community
> oversight as everything else.
> >> There is a high demand for a formatting tool that can do so much more
> than the original design and people have been using it, albeit
> precariously, for that purpose already.
> >> So I believe the original policy that "breaking changes are a benefit"
> can still be valid in a number of places, but it does not (and should not)
> need to be the only valid case. Definitely not the default, either.
> >> I think we need to take a step back and ask users what they expect,
> rather than push forward a policy that people never really wanted but coped
> with it anyway because there's nothing better.
> >> FWIW, borrowing suggestions from others in this thread, I propose we
> change the policy to:
> >> * Breaking changes off by default, override behaviour with
> configuration files
> >> * All behaviour must be controlled by a configuration flag with
> options explicit on doc/config
> >> * Make explicit some options are breaking (comment/naming)
> >> * Backwards compatibility is pursued, but can be broken in case of
> clear bugs
> > FWIW, this seems very reasonable to me.
> > (and it is also what I understood MyDeveloperDay's original proposal to
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Mehdi
> >> An easy way to manage the configuration in this case is to have a dump
> function (`clang-format --dump --config foo.cfg`) that reads a config file
> and dumps all missing parameters and their current values.
> >> Inline comments would be nice but make configuration management hard,
> so there could be a webpage that describes all options and the URL is
> dumped on the config file.
> >> cheers,
> >> --renato
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cfe-dev mailing list
> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev