Re: [GNUnet-developers] clang formatting discussion

[ng0]

Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 2.6K bytes:
> 
> 
> > On 26. Apr 2019, at 00:41, address@hidden wrote:
> > 
> > I've been playing around with clang-format a bit more.
> > 
> > @@ -239,7 +239,8 @@ GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_forever_ ()
> >  * Convert relative time to an absolute time in the
> >  * future.
> >  *
> > - * @return timestamp that is "rel" in the future, or FOREVER if 
> > rel==FOREVER (or if we would overflow)
> > + * @return timestamp that is "rel" in the future, or FOREVER if 
> > rel==FOREVER (or
> > + * if we would overflow)
> >  */
> > 
> > 
> > would this cause problems with doxygen?
> > 
> I don't think it does, not sure.

Okay, I'll read into doxygen to see if it's okay.
 
> > In general it's uhm... weird. But I guess we're mostly okay
> > with clang-format then it seems. I disagree with some of
> > its suggestions, like
> > 
> > @@ -927,8 +929,7 @@ GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_monotonic (const struct 
> > GNUNET_CONFIGURATION_Handle *cf
> > /**
> >  * Destructor
> >  */
> > -void __attribute__ ((destructor))
> > -GNUNET_util_time_fini ()
> > +void __attribute__ ((destructor)) GNUNET_util_time_fini ()
> > {
> >   (void) GNUNET_TIME_absolute_get_monotonic (NULL);
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > but I guess you have to make compromises once you rely on
> > such a tool.
> 
> Actually I think this is a bug and not expected behaviour. Maybe we should 
> file a bug here.

Could be intended behavior?
But reporting a bug is good.

fyi this was in src/util/time.c

Thanks.
 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNUnet-developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
>

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature