Re: [GNUnet-developers] clang formatting discussion

[Schanzenbach, Martin]

> 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.

> 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.

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

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP