[Gluster-devel] Clang-Formatter for GlusterFS.

Tue Sep 18 09:03:54 UTC 2018

I have a different problem. clang is complaining on the 4.1 back port of a
patch which is merged in master before
clang-format is brought in. Is there a way I can get smoke +1 for 4.1 as it
won't be neat to have clang changes
in 4.1 and not in master for same patch. It might further affect the clean
back ports.

- Kotresh HR

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 09/18/2018 02:02 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> It works fine on fedora 28 (clang version 6.0.1). I had the same problem
> you faced on fedora 26 though, presumably because of the older clang
> version.
> -Ravi
>
>
>
>> +1 for the readability of the code having been affected.
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at 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/15
>>>>> 64149
>>>>> about this. Does someone remember what was decided in the end?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amar Tumballi (amarts)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Kotresh H R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20180918/47cb6b6b/attachment-0001.html>