On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:57 PM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, I will take a look. > > Regarding me asking a question in the appropriate clang-format mailing list > should it be just regarding the parentheses and braces being aligned? > That would be the right question to ask, if you can't find a way to align the closing parenthesis.
You might also follow-up that old thread related to alignment of the pointers. > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:41 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:39 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:47 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hello everyone, >>> >> >>> >> I applied the configuration Sebastian used and ran clang-format on >>> >> cpukit/score/src/threadqenque.c and so far these are the differences I >>> >> could notice... >>> >> Below are some example areas in the code you can spot the differences: >>> >> >>> >> In line 68, the ")" at the end of the parameter list needs to be in a >>> >> new row, but this doesn't seem to be supported in clang-format. >>> > >>> > If I understand correctly, clang-format does not like: >>> > >>> > https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/cpukit/score/src/threadqenqueue.c >>> > >>> > which has the first parameter on its one line but wants the first >>> > parameter >>> > after the open parenthesis? >>> > >>> > The RTEMS style would seem to correspond to AlignAfterOpenBracket being >>> > set to AlwaysBreak >>> > >>> >> >>> >> In line 142, if the function call is split into multiple rows, the ");" >>> >> should always be in a new row. >>> > >>> > Having the closing parenthesis on its own line may end up being something >>> > we have to change the RTEMS style on. I do not see an option in their >>> > documentation to do this. Unfortunate, since I like the symmetry between >>> > braces and parentheses. >>> > >>> > Could you file an issue with them and/or ask a question the appropriate >>> > mailing list? Please cc Gedara and me. Give them an example. Maybe >>> > we are missing something. >>> >> >>> >> In line 201-202, we can see that the "*" of the pointers are not aligned >>> >> to the right. >>> > >>> > >>> > This seems to be the issue Gedare mentioned which might have a patch. >>> > Follow up on that. >>> > >>> > But I think we had previously discussed this as a point we may have to >>> > concede and change RTEMS style on. >>> >> >>> >> You can check out the formatted file here - https://pastebin.com/nDBrSSCP >>> > >>> > >>> > Is it just the website or are blank line differences? It may just be an >>> > illusion. I think the spacing between the numbered lines is greater >>> > than in the git view. Just odd. >>> > >>> That's just the pastebin having more vertical padding between consecutive >>> lines. >> >> >> That's what I thought but it did make the code look funny. >> >> Ida/Gedare.. does this mean there are only 3 style mismatch issues? Or only >> three in this file? >> >> Probably should try a few more files and see if there are other >> discrepancies. >> >> And obviously work on the integration/automation of using the tools. :) >> >> --joel >> >>> >>> >>> > --joel >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:36 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Hi Gedare, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > With regards to your comment on discord on me looking for a tool that >>> >>> > works on both patches and source files, it turns out clang-format has >>> >>> > that functionality already. Here's what I found - >>> >>> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormat.html#script-for-patch-reformatting >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Does it match what you have in mind? >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yes. I think we would want to not use the `-i` option but instead pass >>> >>> through and check the changes. I don't think we should rewrite the >>> >>> patches themselves, but instead we want to use a tool that can be used >>> >>> to check and approve the style of submitted patches. You might need to >>> >>> write a modified version of the clang-format-diff.py to use as a >>> >>> "checker" with ability to provide exceptions to the rules. >>> >>> >>> >>> Gedare >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 3:49 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:18 PM Ida Delphine <idad...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Hello everyone, >>> >>> >> > Still waiting for some feedback :) >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Cheers, >>> >>> >> > Ida. >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > On Mon, 10 May 2021, 5:59 am Ida Delphine, <idad...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Hello everyone, >>> >>> >> >> Went through some previous emails and it turns out Sebastian >>> >>> >> >> already came up with a configuration for clang format which works >>> >>> >> >> well for RTEMS except for the fact that some configurations >>> >>> >> >> haven't been implemented into clang-format yet. Using >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> AlignConsecutiveDeclarations: false >>> >>> >> >> PointerAlignment: Right >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Doesn't seem to work. >>> >>> >> >> For example in the cpukit/score/src/threadq.c file, something like >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT( >>> >>> >> >> offsetof( Thread_queue_Syslock_queue, Queue.name ) >>> >>> >> >> == offsetof( struct _Thread_queue_Queue, _name ), >>> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_NAME >>> >>> >> >> ); >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT( >>> >>> >> >> sizeof( Thread_queue_Syslock_queue ) >>> >>> >> >> == sizeof( struct _Thread_queue_Queue ), >>> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_SIZE >>> >>> >> >> ); >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> #if defined(RTEMS_SMP) >>> >>> >> >> void _Thread_queue_Do_acquire_critical( >>> >>> >> >> Thread_queue_Control *the_thread_queue, >>> >>> >> >> ISR_lock_Context *lock_context >>> >>> >> >> ) >>> >>> >> >> { >>> >>> >> >> _Thread_queue_Queue_acquire_critical( >>> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Queue, >>> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Lock_stats, >>> >>> >> >> lock_context >>> >>> >> >> ); >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> becomes this after using the given configuration >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(Thread_queue_Syslock_queue) == >>> >>> >> >> sizeof(struct _Thread_queue_Queue), >>> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_SIZE); >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> #if defined(RTEMS_SMP) >>> >>> >> >> void _Thread_queue_Do_acquire_critical(Thread_queue_Control >>> >>> >> >> *the_thread_queue, >>> >>> >> >> ISR_lock_Context *lock_context) { >>> >>> >> >> _Thread_queue_Queue_acquire_critical( >>> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Queue, &the_thread_queue->Lock_stats, >>> >>> >> >> lock_context); >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Everything seems manageable except for this alignment issue... >>> >>> >> >> This also throws more light on the changes using clang-format >>> >>> >> >> (https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2018-December/024145.html) >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> I think we're willing to concede the pointer alignment. However, it >>> >>> >> would be worth spending some time to see if >>> >>> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27651 can be made to work. The current >>> >>> >> state >>> >>> >> of the code would need to be compared to the patch on that review >>> >>> >> board. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Beyond that, documenting the clang-format options to use is next, and >>> >>> >> then identifying a plan how to invoke clang-format during a git >>> >>> >> workflow is needed. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:05 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> >>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Christian Mauderer >>> >>> >> >>> <o...@c-mauderer.de> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> Hello Ida and Gedare, >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> On 06/05/2021 06:26, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> > hi Ida, >>> >>> >> >>>> > >>> >>> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:21 PM Ida Delphine >>> >>> >> >>>> > <idad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> >> Hello everyone, >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> >> Regarding this project (https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3860) >>> >>> >> >>>> >> I went with clang-format as we all agreed. I have tested it >>> >>> >> >>>> >> on some "score" files and it made some changes which I don't >>> >>> >> >>>> >> think are very much in line with the RTEMS coding style. >>> >>> >> >>>> >> However, it wasn't really clear if we will chage the RTEMS >>> >>> >> >>>> >> coding style or try to make changes to clang-format to fit >>> >>> >> >>>> >> the style. >>> >>> >> >>>> >> Please will love to know the best option. >>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> > We will likely need to consider our choices carefully. If we >>> >>> >> >>>> > can find >>> >>> >> >>>> > a suitably close style that is already well-supported by >>> >>> >> >>>> > clang, and >>> >>> >> >>>> > get consensus from the maintainers on a change, then that >>> >>> >> >>>> > might be the >>> >>> >> >>>> > best route forward. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> +1 >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> > I think the first thing to do is take the examples >>> >>> >> >>>> > that have been shown by Sebastian that are "close" but not >>> >>> >> >>>> > quite >>> >>> >> >>>> > perfect, and identify the cases where they differ with RTEMS >>> >>> >> >>>> > style in >>> >>> >> >>>> > order to present for discussion here. If consensus can't be >>> >>> >> >>>> > reached to >>> >>> >> >>>> > change the style, then we would need to have a plan for how >>> >>> >> >>>> > to improve >>> >>> >> >>>> > the existing tools for what we have. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> I also found the following tool quite useful to play with the >>> >>> >> >>>> clang >>> >>> >> >>>> style config: >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> https://zed0.co.uk/clang-format-configurator/ >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> Maybe it can help a bit to find out what certain options mean. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> > >>> >>> >> >>>> > However, I think there is interest in doing less work on the >>> >>> >> >>>> > tool >>> >>> >> >>>> > side, and more work on how to integrate it into our workflows >>> >>> >> >>>> > better. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> +1 >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> I agree with all of this from the student perspective. But we >>> >>> >> >>> will have >>> >>> >> >>> to come to some agreement on a machine producible format to >>> >>> >> >>> be able to use the integration. A report on what doesn't match >>> >>> >> >>> would >>> >>> >> >>> give us something to chew on while Ida works the integration. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> --joel >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>>> > >>> >>> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >>> >>> >> >>>> >> Ida. >>> >>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >> >>>> >> 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
