lamb-j wrote:
> this doesn't really apply since you changed the function signature so it
> needs to be reformatted.
I don't follow the logic there. The function signature can have a style as
well. And I think this is actually a good example to demonstrate a reason not
to reformat if we look at the next few lines:
Following existing style:
```
void RunOptimizationPipeline(BackendAction Action,
std::unique_ptr<raw_pwrite_stream> &OS,
std::unique_ptr<llvm::ToolOutputFile> &ThinLinkOS,
BackendConsumer *BC);
void RunCodegenPipeline(BackendAction Action,
std::unique_ptr<raw_pwrite_stream> &OS,
std::unique_ptr<llvm::ToolOutputFile> &DwoOS);
```
Following clang format:
```
void RunOptimizationPipeline(
BackendAction Action, std::unique_ptr<raw_pwrite_stream> &OS,
std::unique_ptr<llvm::ToolOutputFile> &ThinLinkOS,
BackendConsumer *BC);
void RunCodegenPipeline(BackendAction Action,
std::unique_ptr<raw_pwrite_stream> &OS,
std::unique_ptr<llvm::ToolOutputFile> &DwoOS);
```
To me, the first case aligns more with the spirit of the "golden rule". And if
someone wants to reformat the whole file at a later point, that would be a good
time to change the style for both signatures.
That said, I definitely don't want this to be a barrier to getting this patch
in, so if you still feel like we should go with the clang-format
recommendation, I'll change it and also update the EmitAssembly and
EmitBackendOutput signatures which were flagged by clang-format for the same
reasons.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69371
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
