On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I > also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding > style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. > > I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. > > I object! >I'd like to hear the reason. :)> -Nick > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> would touch all the lines. Diff is not powerful enough to trace the >>> history beyond variable renaming. svn blame would become useless. >>> >> >> "useless" is much too strong a description. >> >> If svn blame points to the reformat commit, then simply re-run the blame >> on the commit before the reformat. >> >> If total reformats are frequent then this is impractical. If they happen >> once in five years then it's not really a big deal. Wrapper scripts can >> even be pretty easily written to do this automatically. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141006/0963f094/attachment.html>
On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. >> >> I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. > > I object! > > I'd like to hear the reason. :)Right. Specifically, why is it for the “greater good” to perpetuate a schism between lld and the rest of llvm? -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141006/7fb1bd54/attachment.html>
On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. >> >> I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. > > I object! > > I'd like to hear the reason. :)Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested renaming every variable in the project! On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> Right. Specifically, why is it for the “greater good” to perpetuate a schism between lld and the rest of llvm? >Well to turn this around, why is llvm maintaining a schism with the rest of the C++ world? That is, lld (and probably lldb) is more like all the other C++ conventions in the world than llvm is. If llvm had conventions like every other convention, it would be easier for outside developers to contribute to llvm and improve the "greater good". -Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141006/5bdf4db3/attachment.html>
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >> Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I >> also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding >> style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. >> >> I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. >> >> I object! >> > > I'd like to hear the reason. :) > > > Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested > renaming every variable in the project! >In this thread we all have been discussing coding style from the beginning. LLD's formatting rule is the same as LLVM so the rest is naming convention. On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > Right. Specifically, why is it for the “greater good” to perpetuate a > schism between lld and the rest of llvm? > > Well to turn this around, why is llvm maintaining a schism with the rest > of the C++ world? That is, lld (and probably lldb) is more like all the > other C++ conventions in the world than llvm is. If llvm had conventions > like every other convention, it would be easier for outside developers to > contribute to llvm and improve the "greater good". >I understand what you mean. If I would start a project myself, I would adopt more regular-looking C++ coding style than LLVM. However, the point is that LLD is a LLVM project. Most LLVM projects follow the LLVM coding style already. I think it's better to set personal preferences aside and follow the LLVM standard. That's what I'd do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141007/7edb5ead/attachment.html>
On Oct 6, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:>> I'd like to hear the reason. :) > > Up until now the thread has been about “formatting”. You suggested renaming every variable in the project!If that's what it takes.> On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> Right. Specifically, why is it for the “greater good” to perpetuate a schism between lld and the rest of llvm? >> > > Well to turn this around, why is llvm maintaining a schism with the rest of the C++ world? That is, lld (and probably lldb) is more like all the other C++ conventions in the world than llvm is. If llvm had conventions like every other convention, it would be easier for outside developers to contribute to llvm and improve the "greater good".I can see where you're coming from, and as I hope you know, I deeply respect you and your work. You're right that what we're talking about has a profound impact on 100% of the lld project. That said, we must keep in perspective lld vs the rest of the llvm eco system. By my count, lld is about 48K LOC (including include/lib/tools, but not tests). When you compare this to LLVM (about ~1.1M LOC, or clang's ~900KLOC) what we're really discussing is whether it is better to favor the core preferences of the lld authors vs the opportunity cost of developers jumping from llvm/clang and being effective in the lld code base. Given that we're talking about a 40x size difference, along with greater unity in the llvm community, this seems like a simple decision to me. I see your point and can concede that not everyone in the C++ community follows the same approach as the LLVM coding standards, but a) the greater C++ community is far from unified on the lld style, and b) a random C++ developer is far less likely to make the leap to work on LLD than a random LLVM developer is. I really think that both LLD and LLDB should move to the LLVM coding standards. If it makes you feel better, doing so would be a bigger change for the LLDB folks than the LLD ones. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141007/0f2ad6dd/attachment.html>