Doesn't -Wmisleading-indentation already catch all of this? That's
enabled by default on the coreboot gcc. I don't think "it's just a
heuristic" should be a concern unless anyone knows of a real example
that is otherwise valid coreboot code style but not caught by this
heuristic. (If we're worried about examples that are not valid code
style, then changing the code style to make them even more forbidden
doesn't help... so I think weird cases that mix tab and space
indentation or the like should count in favor of this.)
If we're concerned that clang-format might cement errors automatically
then that's a reason for not using clang-format that way, but I don't
see how changing the coding style would solve it. clang-format's whole
job is to take whatever input and transform it into the coding style,
so the input is likely not style-compliant yet.
Forcing braces on single-line statements adds an extra line of
whitespace where it would otherwise not necessarily belong, which
hurts readability. How much of a function can fit on a single screen
is a real readability concern, and I think this style change would
harm it. That's the same reason we write
while {
instead of
while
{
like some other projects. (Of course blank lines can also help
readability, but only in the *right* places and not randomly injected
by style rules.) It would also move us yet again further away from
kernel style, causing more issues for people coming from other
projects.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:54 PM ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:12 PM Stefan Reinauer
> <stefan.reina...@coreboot.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 Jun 2019 08:26, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > clang-format is not a textual preprocessor. It is basically the ast
> > builder of followed by output.
> >
> > So in your case, I just tried it
> > main() {
> >
> > if (foo)
> > bar();
> > baz();
> > }
> >
> > and got the right thing, i.e. braces around bar but not baz.
> >
> >
> > The right thing (e.g. the obviously intended thing) would be too have
> > braces around both.
> >
> > clang-format in this case masks the problem and makes it harder to identify
> > by expanding the syntax of the unwanted behavior to look intentional.
>
> Nico and Stefan, you make a good point, but I would then argue for
> even better tools, like clang-tidy:
> /tmp/x.c:13:10: warning: statement should be inside braces
> [readability-braces-around-statements]
> if (foo)
> ^
> {
>
> In this case, there is a warning thrown, and the author has to clean it up.
>
> I don't believe, based on a lot of the history of this sort of problem
> in C, that we should depend on human reviewers to catch mistakes like
> this. These tools exist because of a demonstrated need. I think
> coreboot could benefit from their proper application.
>
> You've presented a good case, but what about something like this:
> if (foo)
> bar();
> baz();
>
> what's intended? There's an indent, but it's partial. I would not want
> to guess. But I agree with you that an invisible fixup would be
> inappropriate.
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
