On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishan...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 09/13/2018 03:34 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:25:22PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote: >> ... >> >>> What rules does clang impose on function/argument wrapping and >>> alignment? I >>> somehow found the new code wrapping to be random and highly unreadable. >>> An >>> example of 'before and after' the clang format patches went in: >>> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/dC~aRCzYgliqucGYIzxPrQ Wondering >>> if >>> this is just me or is it some problem of spurious clang fixes. >>> >> I agree that this example looks pretty ugly. Looking at random changes >> to the code where I am most active does not show this awkward >> formatting. >> > > So one of my recent patches is failing smoke and clang-format is insisting > [https://build.gluster.org/job/clang-format/22/console] on wrapping > function arguments in an unsightly manner. Should I resend my patch with > this new style of wrapping ? > > I would say yes! We will get better, by changing options of clang-format once we get better options there. But for now, just following the option suggested by clang-format job is good IMO. -Amar > Regards, > Ravi > > > > >> However, I was expecting to see enforcing of the >> single-line-if-statements like this (and while/for/.. loops): >> >> if (need_to_do_it) { >> do_it(); >> } >> >> instead of >> >> if (need_to_do_it) >> do_it(); >> >> At least the conversion did not take care of this. But, maybe I'm wrong >> as I can not find the discussion in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1564149 >> about this. Does someone remember what was decided in the end? >> >> Thanks, >> Niels >> > > -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel