This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C++ coding style inconsistencies

On 06/26/2015 03:50 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:59:51PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 19:28 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Sorry in advance for inviting a bikeshed discussion, but while making
the hashing changes that I just committed, I noticed that the C++ification
has been done in a variety of different styles.  I ended up having to follow
the "do what the surrounding code does" principle that some code bases have,
but to me that's always seemed like an admission of failure.  One of the
strengths of the GCC code base was always that it was written in a very
consistent style.  Regardless of what you think of that style (I personally
like it, but I know others don't at all), it was always easy to work on
a new area of the compiler without having to learn how the surrounding code
preferred to format things.  It would be a shame if we lost that in the
rush to make everything "more C++".


If we're bike-shedding (sorry, I'm waiting for a bootstrap), do we have
a coding standard around the layout of member initialization in


i.e. should it be:

foo::foo (int x, int y) :
   m_x (x),
   m_y (y)


foo::foo (int x, int y)
   : m_x (x),
     m_y (y)

according to the document, the semicolon should be on the first column
if all initializers do not fit on one line with the definition.  Emacs
gnu-style indentation does not do that and produces your second case
above, which, according to some simple grepping, is also greatly
prevails in the codebase now.  So perhaps we should change the rule?

(how much indentation?)

I'd be wary of citing and using this document, IIRC it sometimes
contradicts the official one and was meant as a basis for discussion
when we were discussing whether to switch to gcc in the first place.
But it (CppConventions in the wiki) also has a note that the top that makes it explicit that the information on that page is obsolete and refers the reader to the official conventions.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]