On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:24 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:06 AM Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I think we waste too much time to address coding style issues on newly > > contributed code, for example GSoC. I don't know a source code > > formatting tool which supports the RTEMS coding style and I think it is > > not worth the time to write and maintain such a tool specifically for > > RTEMS. Why don't we simply allow an alternative coding style which has a > > good code formatter for new source files? I don't propose to reformat > > the existing files. > > > > I would simply pick up one of the standard styles supported by > > clang-format and declare it as an acceptable coding style for RTEMS. > I am not willing to blanket accept another project's coding style. I am willing to accept a configuration for a tool that is close to our style and make compromises on specific points. I also think when doing this we should consider things that we do that we have since learned safety standards don't like such as single statement if's without braces. I think we should have braces now. This is best viewed as an opportunity to improve but comes with changes since I don't think any of us wants to add a few more configuration options to any formatter. Although if we get close, I can see adding those as open projects if someone is interested. > > Then students can pipe their code through it before they send it for > > review. This helps to concentrate on the important things to review and > > not the white space. > > > This will work best in combination with a patch management/review > system that can run the style checker and report which style it > passes. > > For me, I definitely spend too much time pointing out style problems. > Often I just do that before I will even think through the logic. But > that is wasting a lot of time. I would be happy to see a path toward > style-proved submissions. > > I know we discussed this topic a few times before. I think there was > even a couple of close style matches found or suggested. I'm open to > the discussion. > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@rtems.org > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
