On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:46:58PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 14/10/13 18:49, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > I've used it successfully on some of the largest files in libav, e.g. > > h264.c, so I really don't know what you are talking about... > > You can run it function by function and put some changes on top and even > in that case you might miss something. Sometimes you do not run it on > certain code because fixing it after takes more time.
it == uncrustify? I have only ever run it on complete files. > On top of it uncrustify isn't a C parser so it can misinterpret and > generate faulty code that by sheer unluck compiles, happened before and > can happen later. Unlikely, but might happen, yes. But you have to review the changes one way or another anyway, so I don't see a big problem ... > Thus why clang-format might be a better pick (or cparser-format once > they get to that point) Maybe - uncrustify has its share of problems; it's just that it's light years ahead of all the other tools I have tried so far and I think I gave all or most tools in the indent family a try... Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
