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?
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
