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) > > 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