> On 26. Apr 2019, at 00:41, [email protected] wrote: > > I've been playing around with clang-format a bit more. > > @@ -239,7 +239,8 @@ GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_forever_ () > * Convert relative time to an absolute time in the > * future. > * > - * @return timestamp that is "rel" in the future, or FOREVER if rel==FOREVER > (or if we would overflow) > + * @return timestamp that is "rel" in the future, or FOREVER if rel==FOREVER > (or > + * if we would overflow) > */ > > > would this cause problems with doxygen? > I don't think it does, not sure.
> In general it's uhm... weird. But I guess we're mostly okay
> with clang-format then it seems. I disagree with some of
> its suggestions, like
>
> @@ -927,8 +929,7 @@ GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_monotonic (const struct
> GNUNET_CONFIGURATION_Handle *cf
> /**
> * Destructor
> */
> -void __attribute__ ((destructor))
> -GNUNET_util_time_fini ()
> +void __attribute__ ((destructor)) GNUNET_util_time_fini ()
> {
> (void) GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_monotonic (NULL);
> }
>
>
> but I guess you have to make compromises once you rely on
> such a tool.
Actually I think this is a bug and not expected behaviour. Maybe we should file
a bug here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
