GSoC - Code Formatting and Style Checking for RTEMS score

Fri Jun 4 20:57:11 UTC 2021

Okay, I will take a look.

Regarding me asking a question in the appropriate clang-format mailing list
should it be just regarding the parentheses and braces being aligned?

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:41 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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/20210604/4ffc300f/attachment-0001.html>