On Jul 8, 2008, at 4:57 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, David Greene wrote: >>> Since I think it really is a part of the LLVM internals, I don't >>> think >>> that mangling it with a prefix is the right way to go. This would >>> significantly increase verbosity in the code and would be generally >>> detrimental. >> >> Verbose, yes, but "generally detrimental?" That's a pretty strong >> statement. > > More specifically, this impacts the tyranical :) 80 column limit we > have: > > > DEBUG(cout << "whatever stuff here" << yeah << "ok"); > > is much more clear to me than: > > LLVM_DEBUG(cout << "whatever stuff here" > << yeah << "ok"); > > To be specific, excess wrapping and clutter is what I would find > detrimental.I completely agree with this point, but then aren't you trading off one aspect of clarity for another? It is a problem with the C preprocessor that hits many projects and the equivalent to the namespace solution for macros is to add a prefix specific to the project. Ie, use LLVM_DEBUG rather than DEBUG. The issue of clutter and excess wrapping is a secondary issue as much of the code in LLVM already is excessively wrapped and, to my eyes, borderline unreadable. At the risk of starting a major thread that has surely been covered many times before: Is there a reason to still cling to the 80 column limit and not consider expanding it to a controversial 100 columns? Dominic
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Dominic Hamon wrote:> At the risk of starting a major thread that has surely been covered > many times before: Is there a reason to still cling to the 80 column > limit and not consider expanding it to a controversial 100 columns?I only have an asr-33 (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=asr-33&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2 for the culturally challenged ) hooked up to my 8 core box. It features 10 CPI and 7.2 inches wide, so only 72 characters; the nice thing is that those pesky 10,000 line functions easily fit on the 1000' roll. :-)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Dominic Hamon wrote:> I completely agree with this point, but then aren't you trading off > one aspect of clarity for another? It is a problem with the C > preprocessor that hits many projects and the equivalent to the > namespace solution for macros is to add a prefix specific to the > project. Ie, use LLVM_DEBUG rather than DEBUG.It hasn't been an issue so far.> At the risk of starting a major thread that has surely been covered > many times before: Is there a reason to still cling to the 80 column > limit and not consider expanding it to a controversial 100 columns?This isn't open for debate and is covered in the coding standards: http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#scf_codewidth -Chris
On Jul 8, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Dominic Hamon wrote: >> I completely agree with this point, but then aren't you trading off >> one aspect of clarity for another? It is a problem with the C >> preprocessor that hits many projects and the equivalent to the >> namespace solution for macros is to add a prefix specific to the >> project. Ie, use LLVM_DEBUG rather than DEBUG. > > It hasn't been an issue so far.This thread suggests that it is now.