> On Aug 11, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Ted Woodward <ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org>
> wrote:
>
> I don’t think we can completely get rid of the lldb coding conventions doc;
> we’ll need this type of thing as long as we use swig:
>
> · enumerations that might end up being in the lldb SB API's should all be
> written like:
>
> typedef enum EnumName
> {
> eEnumNameFirstValue,
> eEnumNameSecondValue,
> } EnumName;
>
We still have a document describing how to write code for the SB API's, and
comments like that properly belong in the SB API document anyway.
Jim
> This redundancy is important because the enumerations that find their way
> through SWIG into Python will show up as lldb.eEnumNameFirstValue, so
> including the enum name in the value name disambiguates them in Python.
>
>
> Some directed questions about this proposal:
> - Will we move to an 80 column limit?
> - Will we move to camel case for variables?
> - Will we stop putting m_ at the front of class ivars and g_ at the
> front of globals?
> - Will we stop using _sp and _up on the end of shared and unique
> pointers?
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
> From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Zachary
> Turner via lldb-dev
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:37 PM
> To: Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com>
> Cc: Kate Stone <k8st...@apple.com>; LLDB <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution
>
> I was thinking the same thing too. I figured this was just for the interim.
>
> Chris, did you mean to update the global LLVM style conventions?
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:27 AM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't this be made general and added to the llvm coding conventions? I
>> was assuming that upon completion of this exercise, we would delete the lldb
>> coding conventions doc.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> > On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
>> > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:37 PM Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
>> >> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So perhaps it would be reasonable for us to standardize on something like
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> • Main Module Header
>> >> • Local/Private Headers
>> >> • lldb/...
>> >> • llvm/...
>> >> • System #includes
>> >
>> > This makes sense to me, and matches what clang does as well. I think that
>> > this is clearly in the spirit of the llvm include order standards, and I
>> > think it would be great to make this explicit in the coding standard doc.
>> > Can you send in a patch to update it to make this explicit? I’ll review
>> > it.
>> >
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> > I actually just submitted the patch. (Sorry, itchy trigger finger or
>> > something). r278373. If you have any comments let me know and I'm happy
>> > to iterate on it.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > lldb-dev mailing list
>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
