similar to: [LLVMdev] LLD vs LLVM coding style...

On Jan 19, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > We're looking more at doing some serious hacking on LLD, and I'd like to avoid doing lots of work in the codebase only to change the style around later. > > My understanding was that LLD was always intended to be a fully integrated LLVM project much like Clang, with a shared coding standard to go with the shared support

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > We're looking more at doing some serious hacking on LLD, and I'd like to > avoid doing lots of work in the codebase only to change the style around > later. > > > > My understanding was that LLD was always intended to

On Jan 20, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest anything vague, but rather refer to my previous (perhaps ill founded) understanding about the expected path forward for LLD. Anyways, I'll explain in a bit more detail so we can talk about the concrete issue. > > My concrete hope is that LLD migrates toward the coding standards that are

> 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

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

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 October 2014 07:19, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > So with that in mind, I would like to ask, would it be possible to > consider > > switching to LLVM style for lld? > > We don't usually enforce code styles on side projects because it >

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.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > 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

In spite of this possibly raising a holy war, I thought I would bring up this question again. When switching between a couple of LLVM repositories, I find having to switch between coding styles a bit of an annoyance. It always takes me a while to get adjusted when switching between LLVM (or clang) and lld. While not an absolute show stopper, not having such friction would be nicer. I realize

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > The lld conventions for ivars is a leading underscore followed by a > lowercase letter. The reserved identifiers are a leading underscore > followed by an uppercase letter. There is no conflict. > And I didn't say that there was. They are *close*. Too close. People make mistakes and get it wrong.

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest anything vague, but rather refer to my > previous (perhaps ill founded) understanding about the expected path > forward for LLD. Anyways, I'll explain in a bit more detail so we can talk > about

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:

On Jan 19, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Sean Silva wrote: > I'm not sure if you're planning on this, but it would be awesome to > dogfood a clang tool which will migrate e.g. variable names > automatically to the LLVM style. Writing+using such a tool will > possibly be easier than manual rename for the task at hand (LLD's > codebase is not super big yet, so maybe not), and may

On Oct 5, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 October 2014 07:19, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: >> So with that in mind, I would like to ask, would it be possible to consider >> switching to LLVM style for lld? > > We don't usually enforce code styles on side projects because it > doesn't

On Wed Oct 08 2014 at 7:25:29 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 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

On 1/22/2013 4:15 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > A different naming convention is one of the most disruptive things to > have change between two code bases. It will cause people to habitually > write code one way, realize they are submitting to the other repository, > and have to mechanically go and rename all their variables. While I > personally like your naming convention

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

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 October 2014 19:45, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > This is not completely accurate. Both LLD and LLDB were given specific > > exemptions from the coding standards, but Clang wasn't and I wouldn't > expect > > a new subproject to *necessarily*

It is unfortunate that we are using a different coding scheme for LLD than LLVM, but I'm leaning toward the view that switching to LLVM style will cost too much if it means we are going to lose virtually all commit history. A patch to switch to LLVM style would rename all local and member variables, so it would touch all the lines. Diff is not powerful enough to trace the history beyond

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. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014