On 23.11.2023 15:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let’s continue the discussion about clang-format configuration, this is part
> 2, previous discussions are:
>
> - https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-11/msg00498.html
>
> You can find the serie introducing clang-format here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/cover/[email protected]/
> and there is also a patch linked to my gitlab account where you can find the
> output for the hypervisor code.
>
> For a full list of configurables and to find the possible values for them,
> please refer to this page:
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our coding style doesn’t mention anything about alignment, shall we add a new
> section?
> I can send patches when we reach agreement on each of these rules.
>
>
> QualifierAlignment: Custom
> QualifierOrder: ['static', 'inline', 'const', 'volatile', 'type']
>
> ---
> For “QualifierAlignment” I chose Custom in order to apply in “QualifierOrder”
> an order for the
> qualifiers that match the current codebase, we could specify also “Leave” in
> order to keep
> them as they are.
Where do attributes go in this sequence?
> Depending on how the discussion goes on this one, it could be an entry in our
> coding style
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AlignAfterOpenBracket: Align
>
> ---
> This one is to align function parameters that overflows the line length, I
> chose to align them
> to the open bracket to match the current codebase (hopefully)
>
> e.g.:
> someLongFunction(argument1,
> argument2);
The above matches neither of the two generally permitted styles:
someLongFunction(argument1,
argument2);
someLongFunction(
argument1,
argument2);
Then again from its name I would infer this isn't just about function
arguments?
> This one can be a candidate for an entry in our coding style
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AlignArrayOfStructures: Left
>
> ---
> “When using initialization for an array of structs aligns the fields into
> columns."
> It’s important to say that even if we specify “None”, it is going to format
> the data structure anyway,
> I choose left, but clearly I’m open to suggestions.
You don't say in which way it re-formats such constructs.
> I don’t know how to phrase this one in our coding style
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AlignConsecutiveAssignments: None
>
> ---
> This one is disabled because of feedbacks from Stefano and Alejandro about
> some weird behaviour on our
> codebase.
>
> This one could be phased along this line: “Consecutive assignments don't need
> to be aligned.”, the issue is
> that in this way it seems that it’s optional, but clang-format is going to
> remove the alignment anyway for
> assignment that are consecutive and aligned.
Like below if there's no way to say "leave alone", then I don't consider this
usable. Imo we want to permit people to align when they think it helps, but
we don't want to demand them doing so.
Jan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AlignConsecutiveBitFields: None
>
> ---
> Same thing as AlignConsecutiveAssignments, but for bitfields.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AlignConsecutiveDeclarations: None
>
> ---
> This aligns declarations names, same considerations as
> AlignConsecutiveAssignments.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok this is it for now, let me know your thoughts about them, ideally if I
> don’t get any reply in two weeks (7th of December),
> I will consider that we have an agreement on these configuration.
>
> Cheers,
> Luca
