Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
2019-Feb-03 17:59 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Modernizing our use of auto
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:50 AM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 31/12/2018 04:54, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Do those uses conform to the guide? If they don't, then should the > guide be updated? Are the types there 'obvious’? > > > > If/when we revise the policy, then it would make sense for > non-conforming uses of auto to be changed. However, I don’t think that > actually making a widespread change would be high priority... > > > >> How did all of those uses get into the codebase? Does it indicate that > the guide is not followed, or does it indicate that the guide is too > subjective, or that maybe the 'the type must be obvios' guide does not > reflect the 'reality at the coalface' anymore? Should those uses of auto be > changed? > > > > My understanding is that there has been no widely understood or accepted > policy, so different coders and reviewers are doing different things. > > One of the things which has no consensus here is whether 'auto' may be > used in lambdas (using c++-14).Under the current guidelines, my understanding is that nothing prevents to use auto in lambda in order to "make the code more readable" when "the type is already obvious from the context" or "when the type would have been abstracted away anyways, often behind a container’s typedef such as std::vector<T>::iterator". We don't need to update the guideline on auto to be able to use auto in lambda as soon as c++14 is available.> This feature was celebrated as a big > feature which gets unlocked by migrating to toolchains which provide > that feature: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/llvm-dev/0VkIuhn10nE/QZ5FwYEmHAAJ > > So, does this need a guideline update? > > Is there consistency in celbrating that but writing 'remove all use of > auto from this file' in reviews? > > If there's no consensus and no consistency, what does that mean for the > code? > > Is > > if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) > > ok? > > Some reviewers say 'no'. What is the consensus and how is that expressed > in the guidelines? > > Does anyone have any interest in making the guidelines more clear on > this? > > I have made several proposals, and at least Chris agreed that something > should be improved, but then he left the discussion. > > Does anyone else think that something can be improved? Is anyone willing > to read and comment on my proposal and get a change to the guidelines > committed? >I think that multiple people read your proposal and gave feedback on Phabricator that mandates a revision (for instance for-range loop). Also in this topic I believe some feedback was given that rewording in order to remove ambiguity is always good, as long as the "spirit" of the current rule as it is written is preserved. So my take on the subject is that we're waiting on a new revision of your patch? Best, -- Mehdi> > The original email in this thread was about how to handle features that > become 'unlocked' by updates to our minimum toolchain requirements. That > is now upon us. > > Thanks, > > Stephen. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190203/948fe688/attachment.html>
Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev
2019-Feb-03 18:30 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Modernizing our use of auto
On 03/02/2019 17:59, Mehdi AMINI wrote:> > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:50 AM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > On 31/12/2018 04:54, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Do those uses conform to the guide? If they don't, then should > the guide be updated? Are the types there 'obvious’? > > > > If/when we revise the policy, then it would make sense for > non-conforming uses of auto to be changed. However, I don’t think > that actually making a widespread change would be high priority... > > > >> How did all of those uses get into the codebase? Does it > indicate that the guide is not followed, or does it indicate that > the guide is too subjective, or that maybe the 'the type must be > obvios' guide does not reflect the 'reality at the coalface' > anymore? Should those uses of auto be changed? > > > > My understanding is that there has been no widely understood or > accepted policy, so different coders and reviewers are doing > different things. > > One of the things which has no consensus here is whether 'auto' may be > used in lambdas (using c++-14). > > > Under the current guidelines, my understanding is that nothing > prevents to use auto in lambda in order to "make the code more > readable" when "the type is already obvious from the context" or "when > the type would have been abstracted away anyways, often behind a > container’s typedef such as std::vector<T>::iterator". >Some people seem to have objections to use of auto with range-for loops too. There doesn't seem to be consensus on what is 'readable'. Some people claim strongly that 'the type must be obvious. There even seems to be consensus on that phrase, though it doesn't seem to actually apply - We have lots of uses of auto with AST Matchers for example, and the type of the matcher is not obvious in that code. We have lots of similar 'the type is not "obvious"' code using auto. And yet, if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) draws review comments that it must be changed.> We don't need to update the guideline on auto to be able to use auto > in lambda as soon as c++14 is available.That seems to depend on the reviewer, which means the code and the reviews will be inconsistent.> > > This feature was celebrated as a big > feature which gets unlocked by migrating to toolchains which provide > that feature: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/llvm-dev/0VkIuhn10nE/QZ5FwYEmHAAJ > > So, does this need a guideline update? > > Is there consistency in celbrating that but writing 'remove all use of > auto from this file' in reviews? > > If there's no consensus and no consistency, what does that mean > for the > code? > > Is > > if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) > > ok? > > Some reviewers say 'no'. What is the consensus and how is that > expressed > in the guidelines? > > Does anyone have any interest in making the guidelines more clear on > this? > > I have made several proposals, and at least Chris agreed that > something > should be improved, but then he left the discussion. > > Does anyone else think that something can be improved? Is anyone > willing > to read and comment on my proposal and get a change to the guidelines > committed? > > > I think that multiple people read your proposal and gave feedback on > Phabricator that mandates a revision (for instance for-range loop). > Also in this topic I believe some feedback was given that rewording in > order to remove ambiguity is always good, as long as the "spirit" of > the current rule as it is written is preserved. > So my take on the subject is that we're waiting on a new revision of > your patch?We deliberately took the discussion off Phab and onto the mailing list to try to get more-fruitful discussion. For example in http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Re-llvm-dev-RFC-Modernizing-our-use-of-auto-td4063365.html#a4063424 I suggested that 'New guidelines should...' and then wrote some content. If we don't agree on 'what new guidelines should do', then perhaps it is not time for a Phab patch yet? Thanks for responding to that mail! :) I responded to you, but the discussion again did not progress. Is there just not enough interest in this? I'm getting the impression the topic should be dropped, but maybe I'm missing something? Thanks, Stephen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190203/7ff1d1ba/attachment.html>
Jameson Nash via llvm-dev
2019-Feb-04 20:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Modernizing our use of auto
This might be a bit of a strange take, but as an outside user of LLVM, my personal request would be that uses of `auto` be loosely predicated on not breaking doxygen too badly/frequently. (I surmise this essentially means discouraging `auto` when there are member functions being called from it later to do interesting work, but I leave that for others to debate and decide). I know doxygen already has many other similar failure modes (such as templates and auto-generated content, macros), but I thought offering this view might provide some objectivity to the "more readable" question, as it attempts to connect the definition of readability to a specific tooling question ("is the type available to a locally-syntactic tool with a particular purpose?") instead of subjective aesthetics (such as whether auto in lambda is more or less pretty). Of course, that still leaves many edge cases: for example, I found http://llvm.org/doxygen/IRBuilder_8h_source.html#l02247 while searching for an example for this email: 2247 if (const auto *CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(OffsetValue)) 2248 IsOffsetZero = CI->isZero(); 2249 This is a case where auto is generally accepted (because the type is obvious in the dyn_cast), but since doxygen doesn't know about that convention, it is unable to find the documentation for the `isZero` call. Anyways, my 2¢, from a lurker. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:31 PM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > On 03/02/2019 17:59, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:50 AM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 31/12/2018 04:54, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Do those uses conform to the guide? If they don't, then should the >> guide be updated? Are the types there 'obvious’? >> > >> > If/when we revise the policy, then it would make sense for >> non-conforming uses of auto to be changed. However, I don’t think that >> actually making a widespread change would be high priority... >> > >> >> How did all of those uses get into the codebase? Does it indicate that >> the guide is not followed, or does it indicate that the guide is too >> subjective, or that maybe the 'the type must be obvios' guide does not >> reflect the 'reality at the coalface' anymore? Should those uses of auto be >> changed? >> > >> > My understanding is that there has been no widely understood or >> accepted policy, so different coders and reviewers are doing different >> things. >> >> One of the things which has no consensus here is whether 'auto' may be >> used in lambdas (using c++-14). > > > Under the current guidelines, my understanding is that nothing prevents to > use auto in lambda in order to "make the code more readable" when "the type > is already obvious from the context" or "when the type would have been > abstracted away anyways, often behind a container’s typedef such as > std::vector<T>::iterator". > > > Some people seem to have objections to use of auto with range-for loops > too. > There doesn't seem to be consensus on what is 'readable'. Some people > claim > strongly that 'the type must be obvious. There even seems to be consensus > on > that phrase, though it doesn't seem to actually apply - We have lots of > uses of > auto with AST Matchers for example, and the type of the matcher is not > obvious > in that code. We have lots of similar 'the type is not "obvious"' code > using auto. > > And yet, > > if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) > > draws review comments that it must be changed. > > > We don't need to update the guideline on auto to be able to use auto in > lambda as soon as c++14 is available. > > > That seems to depend on the reviewer, which means the code and the reviews > will be inconsistent. > > > > > >> This feature was celebrated as a big >> feature which gets unlocked by migrating to toolchains which provide >> that feature: >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/llvm-dev/0VkIuhn10nE/QZ5FwYEmHAAJ >> >> So, does this need a guideline update? >> >> Is there consistency in celbrating that but writing 'remove all use of >> auto from this file' in reviews? >> >> If there's no consensus and no consistency, what does that mean for the >> code? >> >> Is >> >> if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) >> >> ok? >> >> Some reviewers say 'no'. What is the consensus and how is that expressed >> in the guidelines? >> >> Does anyone have any interest in making the guidelines more clear on >> this? >> >> I have made several proposals, and at least Chris agreed that something >> should be improved, but then he left the discussion. >> >> Does anyone else think that something can be improved? Is anyone willing >> to read and comment on my proposal and get a change to the guidelines >> committed? >> > > I think that multiple people read your proposal and gave feedback on > Phabricator that mandates a revision (for instance for-range loop). Also in > this topic I believe some feedback was given that rewording in order to > remove ambiguity is always good, as long as the "spirit" of the current > rule as it is written is preserved. > So my take on the subject is that we're waiting on a new revision of your > patch? > > > We deliberately took the discussion off Phab and onto the mailing list > to try to get more-fruitful discussion. For example in > > > > http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Re-llvm-dev-RFC-Modernizing-our-use-of-auto-td4063365.html#a4063424 > > > I suggested that 'New guidelines should...' and then wrote some > content. If we don't agree on 'what new guidelines should do', then > perhaps it is not time for a Phab patch yet? > > > Thanks for responding to that mail! :) I responded to you, but the > discussion again did not progress. Is there just not enough interest > in this? I'm getting the impression the topic should be dropped, but > maybe I'm missing something? > > > Thanks, > > Stephen. > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190204/0a0da884/attachment.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2019-Feb-04 20:15 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Modernizing our use of auto
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:31 AM Stephen Kelly via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > On 03/02/2019 17:59, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:50 AM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 31/12/2018 04:54, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Do those uses conform to the guide? If they don't, then should the >> guide be updated? Are the types there 'obvious’? >> > >> > If/when we revise the policy, then it would make sense for >> non-conforming uses of auto to be changed. However, I don’t think that >> actually making a widespread change would be high priority... >> > >> >> How did all of those uses get into the codebase? Does it indicate that >> the guide is not followed, or does it indicate that the guide is too >> subjective, or that maybe the 'the type must be obvios' guide does not >> reflect the 'reality at the coalface' anymore? Should those uses of auto be >> changed? >> > >> > My understanding is that there has been no widely understood or >> accepted policy, so different coders and reviewers are doing different >> things. >> >> One of the things which has no consensus here is whether 'auto' may be >> used in lambdas (using c++-14). > > > Under the current guidelines, my understanding is that nothing prevents to > use auto in lambda in order to "make the code more readable" when "the type > is already obvious from the context" or "when the type would have been > abstracted away anyways, often behind a container’s typedef such as > std::vector<T>::iterator". > > > Some people seem to have objections to use of auto with range-for loops > too. > There doesn't seem to be consensus on what is 'readable'. Some people > claim > strongly that 'the type must be obvious. There even seems to be consensus > on > that phrase, though it doesn't seem to actually apply - We have lots of > uses of > auto with AST Matchers for example, and the type of the matcher is not > obvious > in that code. We have lots of similar 'the type is not "obvious"' code > using auto. > > And yet, > > if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) > > draws review comments that it must be changed. > > > We don't need to update the guideline on auto to be able to use auto in > lambda as soon as c++14 is available. > > > That seems to depend on the reviewer, which means the code and the reviews > will be inconsistent. > > > > > >> This feature was celebrated as a big >> feature which gets unlocked by migrating to toolchains which provide >> that feature: >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/llvm-dev/0VkIuhn10nE/QZ5FwYEmHAAJ >> >> So, does this need a guideline update? >> >> Is there consistency in celbrating that but writing 'remove all use of >> auto from this file' in reviews? >> >> If there's no consensus and no consistency, what does that mean for the >> code? >> >> Is >> >> if (const auto *TSI = D->getTypeSourceInfo()) >> >> ok? >> >> Some reviewers say 'no'. What is the consensus and how is that expressed >> in the guidelines? >> >> Does anyone have any interest in making the guidelines more clear on >> this? >> >> I have made several proposals, and at least Chris agreed that something >> should be improved, but then he left the discussion. >> >> Does anyone else think that something can be improved? Is anyone willing >> to read and comment on my proposal and get a change to the guidelines >> committed? >> > > I think that multiple people read your proposal and gave feedback on > Phabricator that mandates a revision (for instance for-range loop). Also in > this topic I believe some feedback was given that rewording in order to > remove ambiguity is always good, as long as the "spirit" of the current > rule as it is written is preserved. > So my take on the subject is that we're waiting on a new revision of your > patch? > > > We deliberately took the discussion off Phab and onto the mailing list > to try to get more-fruitful discussion. For example in > > > > http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Re-llvm-dev-RFC-Modernizing-our-use-of-auto-td4063365.html#a4063424 > > > I suggested that 'New guidelines should...' and then wrote some > content. If we don't agree on 'what new guidelines should do', then > perhaps it is not time for a Phab patch yet? > > > Thanks for responding to that mail! :) I responded to you, but the > discussion again did not progress. Is there just not enough interest > in this? >That'd be my take on it - that some amount of readability varies depending on the reader (& will then vary depending on the reviewer, since they are the reader). Yeah, some subprojects of LLVM (LLD, LLDB are noteworthy here) have more esoteric/specialized styles than the rest of the LLVM project (but even within LLVM proper, different areas have some variations - maybe just due to history, not having been cleaned up for more modern (naming, style, C++ usage, etc) conventions). Yes, it's a source of some friction when an existing LLVM developer (or a newcomer) moves into a different part of the project and writes what they believe are idiomatic - but finds a different local style requested - this is especially sub-optimal for newcomers where the friction is already fairly high to get involved. But it's hard to muster enough buy-in to change much of that, to be honest. - Dave> I'm getting the impression the topic should be dropped, but > maybe I'm missing something? > > > Thanks, > > Stephen. > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190204/d4292d38/attachment.html>