On 30/07/2019 11:53, Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann wrote:
Is the plan for LLDB to just adapt the code that is trying to follow the new code style or also the code using the LLDB code style?
I don't think there's a "plan" at this moment, but I believe Chris meant all of LLDB.
I’m in general in favor of moving LLDB to the LLVM code style because it makes the LLDB code that interfaces with Clang/LLVM less awkward to write (e.g. no more code style confusion when inheriting from a Clang classes inside the LLDB code base). But I think if we do this, then it should be discussed/planned in more detail and in a lldb-dev thread that actually reaches all/most LLDB devs. I wouldn’t even have read this thread if Pavel didn’t CC lldb-dev. As a side note: LLDB has downstream projects that will suffer from this, but I believe (?) LLD has no downstream projects. So I think LLD is maybe also a good candidate to test this?
The details of this may have gotten lost in the long thread, but actually, LLD has gone through the reformatting in the beginning of this month. You can look up the details in the thread, but the short summary is that it was done via an automated script in a manner very similar to the Great LLDB Reformat a couple of years ago. Judging by the thread, there are downstream lld users, and while they encountered some hickups, it looks like the overall merge process has been relatively painless.
The topic of discussion now is "where do we go from here" and LLDB has been proposed as the next step.
pl _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
