On 1/28/22 11:37 AM, Tom Rix wrote:
On 1/28/22 11:11 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2022-01-28 at 09:59 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
On 1/28/22 9:42 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 1/27/22 07:19, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
checkpatch reports several hundred formatting errors.
Run these files through clang-format and knock off
some of them.
Isn't this the kind of patches that carries more risk than value?
Risk for whitespace style reformatting patches is quite low.
Nominally, clang-format changes should not produce a different
compiled object file unless __LINE__/__DATE__/__TIME__ style
changes occur.
If it does, the clang-format tool is broken.
Additionally, this patch conflicts with a patch series that I plan to
post soon.
[]
Long term, it would be good have a reliable way to automatically fix
either new files or really broken old files.
That's really a maintainer preference no?
Especially so for any automation.
In practice everything is up to the maintainer.
If some maintainer wants fix their formatting then clang-format should
just work
It isn't likely they will have time to hand fix every file.
A follow up issue in the clang project has been raised by Konrad, here
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54137
Tom
Tom
