> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested renaming >>> every variable in the project! >> >> If that's what it takes. > > If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole > history, I think it's feasible.Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite history. -Chris
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested > renaming > >>> every variable in the project! > >> > >> If that's what it takes. > > > > If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole > > history, I think it's feasible. > > Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite > history.I think rewriting history is kind of a hand-wavy pipe dream. ;] I'll believe it when I see it. For now, we should stick to what we know we could actually do, and changing head is the only realistic option there. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141008/fca37bdb/attachment.html>
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> > On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested >> renaming >> >>> every variable in the project! >> >> >> >> If that's what it takes. >> > >> > If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole >> > history, I think it's feasible. >> >> Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite >> history. > > > I think rewriting history is kind of a hand-wavy pipe dream. ;] I'll > believe it when I see it. For now, we should stick to what we know we could > actually do, and changing head is the only realistic option there. >FWIW - I don't think we even have that power (when it comes to global renaming) yet, do we? (rename everything in a project to match some naming convention) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141008/0fde8698/attachment.html>
On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested renaming >>>> every variable in the project! >>> >>> If that's what it takes. >> >> If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole >> history, I think it's feasible. > > Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite history. > > -ChrisIn case it is not clear, the lld’s convention diverge from LLVM’s in two small ways that were designed to overcome bugs in the LLVM conventions. When the lld project first started up, I wrote the attached conventions doc to detail the reason why lld was different. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141008/e223f708/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- Given the above reasons for the divergence, I would consider a mass variable renaming in lld sources would make the lld source base worse. Yes, having uniforms coding styles is nice. Therefore, I suggest we discuss a variable naming convention that fixes LLVM's problems and can be adopted by all projects. -Nick
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:> On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> On 8 October 2014 05:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >>>> Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested > renaming > >>>> every variable in the project! > >>> > >>> If that's what it takes. > >> > >> If we're still talking about applying it to the HEAD, not the whole > >> history, I think it's feasible. > > > > Yep, to be clear, I mean one big change to head, not trying to rewrite > history. > > > > -Chris > > In case it is not clear, the lld’s convention diverge from LLVM’s in two > small ways that were designed to overcome bugs in the LLVM conventions. > When the lld project first started up, I wrote the attached conventions doc > to detail the reason why lld was different. > > > > > Given the above reasons for the divergence, I would consider a mass > variable renaming in lld sources would make the lld source base worse. >I see both sides of this, but ultimately would leave the decision to the primary contributors to LLD. At this point, if Rui is in favor of it, I think he should make it so (given that several of the other contributor seem to be in favor as well). That said...> Yes, having uniforms coding styles is nice. Therefore, I suggest we > discuss a variable naming convention that fixes LLVM's problems and can be > adopted by all projects.Sure, I actually have no problem with this. I'm going to point out that one of the naming conventions used by LLD has serious problems: naming variables with a leading underscore puts them *way* too close to the reserved identifier space. Folks have accidentally ended up with reserved names quite a few times already. However, I care much less about the particular naming convention than that we have a consistent naming convention. And changing LLD to LLVM's style and then later changing LLVM's style (and all the subprojects) will not appreciably increase the amount of churn required to the project as a whole. So I don't think we should hold up progress in the pursuit of perfection here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141008/1dbcf3bd/attachment.html>
On Oct 8, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:> Yes, having uniforms coding styles is nice. Therefore, I suggest we discuss a variable naming convention that fixes LLVM's problems and can be adopted by all projects.Yes, I think this is reasonable: I care primarily about consistency, not about which option is picked. Please start a thread, proposing that we change the LLVM style to follow the LLD style (and outline the pros and cons of the style). If the community decides that changing LLVM/Clang to follow LLD is the right thing to do, than so be it. Until we get consensus, I agree that it makes sense to hold off on renaming the world in LLD. -Chris