MyDeveloperDay added a comment. In D69764#2934483 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934483>, @erichkeane wrote:
> In D69764#2934473 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934473>, @MyDeveloperDay > wrote: > >> In D69764#2934378 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934378>, @erichkeane >> wrote: >> >>> I've just been watching this from the sideline, but the cases where this >>> breaks code are unacceptable for this tool, it is a complete direction >>> change for the tool, and making that direction change silently on a review >>> of a 15 month patch, where TWO code owners have said 'no' for that reason >>> is absurd. >>> >>> I use this tool daily as a part of my 'upload' script, having it silently >>> bust code between when I validate it and when I upload it is terrible, and >>> makes the tool unusable for my purposes. If we change this direction >>> without a full RFC, my next step is going to be an RFC to remove >>> clang-format from the check-in requirements of the entire LLVM project. >> >> This and other potentially other mutating options would and MUST in my view >> ALWAYS be 100% "off by default" for all default style options (as -fix is >> for clang-tidy), it would be a purely "opt in" basis. (via .clang-format or >> command line) >> >> I personally use this in a non modifying way "using the -dry-run mode" to >> catch new"east/const violations" and report failure back rather than "change >> the code itself" >> >> I would not expect clang-format usage to change unless someone specially >> opted in to using it. > > That seems just as bad, if not worse. Clang-format isn't an analysis tool, > its a format tool. If you have an option that can only reasonably be run in > 'dry-run' mode, it seems that putting it in a 'format' tool is the wrong > place. This is exactly what the "llvm-premerge checks" do!, why can't it also be an analysis tool? your own usage scenario may not be the same as everyone elses, that doesn't make it wrong! > If you have an option that can only reasonably be run in 'dry-run' mode This isn't true, I successfully "east consted" all of clang causing no build errors and from what I can tell no unit test failure either, I'm just saying using it in dry-run mode is an equally useful usage scenario. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
