Glad to see clang-format getting some improvements.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > As far as I'm aware, this is the last major incompatibility between LLDB's > style and clang-format's feature set. > > I would appreciate it if more people could try it out with a few of their > patches, and let me know if any LLDB style incompatibilities arise in the > formatted code. > > I would eventually like to move towards requiring that all patches be > clang-formatted before committing to LLDB. > Question to the group on that last part. I think if we have a large body of code that is just getting a few tweaks to a method, having the patch run through the formatter could lead to some pretty ugly code. Imagine a few lines of a file awkwardly formatted related to the rest of the file. Since we're not trying to reformat everything at once (which makes for difficult code traceability), and given there was a large code base to start with before LLDB was part of LLVM, I'm not sure we want a blanket statement that says it must go through clang-format. (I personally would be fine with doing whole new functions and other logical blocks of code via clang-format when inserted into existing code, but I think it probably extreme when we're talking about new little sections within existing functions). Thoughts? -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
