Uncrustify Configuration vs RTEMS Coding Style
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Tue Apr 6 05:24:34 UTC 2021
On 05/04/2021 17:25, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:51 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> Hello Joel,
> On 04/04/2021 22:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> > Do you have a list or remember where uncrustify could not match the
> > RTEMS Coding Style?
> my uncrustify had 742 options and I didn't manage do find an
> option set
> which produces the RTEMS Coding Style. I think using options to
> define a
> source code formatter behaviour is broken by design. You probably
> some sort of a Turing complete domain-specific language for this.
> I tried to write a configuration file for clang-format 10. It worked
> well until I discovered this broken option:
> What we need for the RTEMS style is:
> AlignConsecutiveDeclarations: true
> PointerAlignment: Right
> This combination seems to be unimplemented properly since 2016.
> It seems there is still no tool available which is able to produce
> something close to the RTEMS style.
> Which do you think is closer? Any hunch? Or which was better in
> your experience?
> I don't expect a tool to be perfect. I expected there to be some give
> and take between changing our style and changing the tool.
I would use clang-format since this tool is used by some large projects.
For an example please have a look at:
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
More information about the devel