I see that the procedure mentioned in the coding standard document is buggy. git show --pretty="format:" --name-only | grep -v "contrib/" | egrep "*\.[ch]$" | xargs clang-format -i The above command edited the whole file. which is not supposed to happen. +1 for the readability of the code having been affected. On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM Amar Tumballi <atumball@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel -- Regards, Hari Gowtham. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
