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

Tue Aug 9 01:15:27 PDT 2016

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
> >> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20160809/54e0e38f/attachment.bin>