GSoC - Code Formatting and Style Checking for RTEMS score

Fri Jun 4 19:41:31 UTC 2021

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:39 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:47 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ida Delphine <idadelm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> I applied the configuration Sebastian used and ran clang-format on
> cpukit/score/src/threadqenque.c and so far these are the differences I
> could notice...
> >> Below are some example areas in the code you can spot the differences:
> >>
> >> In line 68, the ")" at the end of the parameter list needs to be in a
> new row, but this doesn't seem to be supported in clang-format.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, clang-format does not like:
> >
> > https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/cpukit/score/src/threadqenqueue.c
> >
> > which has the first parameter on its one line but wants the first
> parameter
> > after the open parenthesis?
> >
> > The RTEMS style would seem to correspond to AlignAfterOpenBracket being
> > set to AlwaysBreak
> >
> >>
> >> In line 142, if the function call is split into multiple rows, the ");"
> should always be in a new row.
> >
> > Having the closing parenthesis on its own line may end up being something
> > we have to change the RTEMS style on. I do not see an option in their
> > documentation to do this. Unfortunate, since I like the symmetry between
> > braces and parentheses.
> >
> >  Could you file an issue with them and/or ask a question the appropriate
> > mailing list? Please cc Gedara and me. Give them an example. Maybe
> > we are missing something.
> >>
> >> In line 201-202, we can see that the "*" of the pointers are not
> aligned to the right.
> >
> >
> > This seems to be the issue Gedare mentioned which might have a patch.
> > Follow up on that.
> >
> > But I think we had previously discussed this as a point we may have to
> > concede and change RTEMS style on.
> >>
> >> You can check out the formatted file here -
> https://pastebin.com/nDBrSSCP
> >
> >
> > Is it just the website or are blank line differences? It may just be an
> > illusion. I think the spacing between the numbered lines is greater
> > than in the git view. Just odd.
> >
> That's just the pastebin having more vertical padding between consecutive
> lines.
>

That's what I thought but it did make the code look funny.

Ida/Gedare.. does this mean there are only 3 style mismatch issues? Or only
three in this file?

Probably should try a few more files and see if there are other
discrepancies.

And obviously work on the integration/automation of using the tools. :)

--joel

>
> > --joel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:36 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM Ida Delphine <idadelm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Gedare,
> >>> >
> >>> > With regards to your comment on discord on me looking for a tool
> that works on both patches and source files, it turns out clang-format has
> that functionality already. Here's what I found -
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormat.html#script-for-patch-reformatting
> >>> >
> >>> > Does it match what you have in mind?
> >>> >
> >>> Yes. I think we would want to not use the `-i` option but instead pass
> >>> through and check the changes. I don't think we should rewrite the
> >>> patches themselves, but instead we want to use a tool that can be used
> >>> to check and approve the style of submitted patches. You might need to
> >>> write a modified version of the clang-format-diff.py to use as a
> >>> "checker" with ability to provide exceptions to the rules.
> >>>
> >>> Gedare
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 3:49 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:18 PM Ida Delphine <idadelm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Hello everyone,
> >>> >> > Still waiting for some feedback :)
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Cheers,
> >>> >> > Ida.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Mon, 10 May 2021, 5:59 am Ida Delphine, <idadelm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Hello everyone,
> >>> >> >> Went through some previous emails and it turns out Sebastian
> already came up with a configuration for clang format which works well for
> RTEMS except for the fact that some configurations haven't been implemented
> into clang-format yet. Using
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> AlignConsecutiveDeclarations: false
> >>> >> >> PointerAlignment: Right
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Doesn't seem to work.
> >>> >> >> For example in the cpukit/score/src/threadq.c file, something
> like
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT(
> >>> >> >> offsetof( Thread_queue_Syslock_queue, Queue.name )
> >>> >> >> == offsetof( struct _Thread_queue_Queue, _name ),
> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_NAME
> >>> >> >> );
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT(
> >>> >> >> sizeof( Thread_queue_Syslock_queue )
> >>> >> >> == sizeof( struct _Thread_queue_Queue ),
> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_SIZE
> >>> >> >> );
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> #if defined(RTEMS_SMP)
> >>> >> >> void _Thread_queue_Do_acquire_critical(
> >>> >> >> Thread_queue_Control *the_thread_queue,
> >>> >> >> ISR_lock_Context *lock_context
> >>> >> >> )
> >>> >> >> {
> >>> >> >> _Thread_queue_Queue_acquire_critical(
> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Queue,
> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Lock_stats,
> >>> >> >> lock_context
> >>> >> >> );
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> becomes this after using the given configuration
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> RTEMS_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(Thread_queue_Syslock_queue) ==
> >>> >> >> sizeof(struct _Thread_queue_Queue),
> >>> >> >> THREAD_QUEUE_SYSLOCK_QUEUE_SIZE);
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> #if defined(RTEMS_SMP)
> >>> >> >> void _Thread_queue_Do_acquire_critical(Thread_queue_Control
> *the_thread_queue,
> >>> >> >> ISR_lock_Context *lock_context) {
> >>> >> >> _Thread_queue_Queue_acquire_critical(
> >>> >> >> &the_thread_queue->Queue, &the_thread_queue->Lock_stats,
> lock_context);
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Everything seems manageable except for this alignment issue...
> >>> >> >> This also throws more light on the changes using clang-format (
> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2018-December/024145.html)
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> I think we're willing to concede the pointer alignment. However, it
> >>> >> would be worth spending some time to see if
> >>> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27651 can be made to work. The current
> state
> >>> >> of the code would need to be compared to the patch on that review
> >>> >> board.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Beyond that, documenting the clang-format options to use is next,
> and
> >>> >> then identifying a plan how to invoke clang-format during a git
> >>> >> workflow is needed.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:05 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org>
> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Christian Mauderer <
> oss at c-mauderer.de> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> Hello Ida and Gedare,
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> On 06/05/2021 06:26, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >>> >> >>>> > hi Ida,
> >>> >> >>>> >
> >>> >> >>>> > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:21 PM Ida Delphine <
> idadelm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>> >> Hello everyone,
> >>> >> >>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>> >> Regarding this project (https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3860)
> I went with clang-format as we all agreed. I have tested it on some "score"
> files and it made some changes which I don't think are very much in line
> with the RTEMS coding style. However, it wasn't really clear if we will
> chage the RTEMS coding style or try to make changes to clang-format to fit
> the style.
> >>> >> >>>> >> Please will love to know the best option.
> >>> >> >>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>> > We will likely need to consider our choices carefully. If we
> can find
> >>> >> >>>> > a suitably close style that is already well-supported by
> clang, and
> >>> >> >>>> > get consensus from the maintainers on a change, then that
> might be the
> >>> >> >>>> > best route forward.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> +1
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> > I think the first thing to do is take the examples
> >>> >> >>>> > that have been shown by Sebastian that are "close" but not
> quite
> >>> >> >>>> > perfect, and identify the cases where they differ with RTEMS
> style in
> >>> >> >>>> > order to present for discussion here. If consensus can't be
> reached to
> >>> >> >>>> > change the style, then we would need to have a plan for how
> to improve
> >>> >> >>>> > the existing tools for what we have.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> I also found the following tool quite useful to play with the
> clang
> >>> >> >>>> style config:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> https://zed0.co.uk/clang-format-configurator/
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> Maybe it can help a bit to find out what certain options mean.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> >
> >>> >> >>>> > However, I think there is interest in doing less work on the
> tool
> >>> >> >>>> > side, and more work on how to integrate it into our
> workflows better.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> +1
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> I agree with all of this from the student perspective. But we
> will have
> >>> >> >>> to come to some agreement on a machine producible format to
> >>> >> >>> be able to use the integration. A report on what doesn't match
> would
> >>> >> >>> give us something to chew on while Ida works the integration.
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> --joel
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> >
> >>> >> >>>> >> Cheers,
> >>> >> >>>> >> Ida.
> >>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>> >> devel mailing list
> >>> >> >>>> >> devel at rtems.org
> >>> >> >>>> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>> >> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>> > devel mailing list
> >>> >> >>>> > devel at rtems.org
> >>> >> >>>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>> >> >>>> >
> >>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>> devel mailing list
> >>> >> >>>> devel at rtems.org
> >>> >> >>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20210604/d076c50b/attachment-0001.html>