This is not completely accurate. Both LLD and LLDB were given specific
exemptions from the coding standards, but Clang wasn't and I wouldn't expect
a new subproject to *necessarily* get such an exemption. It might, it might
Why exemptions are made is beyond the point, once it's made, there are
mainly two ways to move to a common point: one big clang-format in the
tree, or a slow moving change on new functions or small refactorings
when moving things around. My point is that the former breaks the
history of the project, while the latter is hard to do without making
it a little worse during the move, which can cause even more pain.
I consider the current state with both LLD and LLDB a bug rather than a
feature because it creates pointless and non-trivial disruption for
developers to move between LLVM, Clang, LLD, and LLDB.
Meh. I have seen so many different coding standards that for me
they're all alike.
You can argue that
coding standards are like fashion, but *changing* coding standards is a much
more pragmatic and real concern. At least one important point of LLVM's
standards (in my mind and I suspect other developers' minds) is to drive
consistency both within projects and across projects.
A fine goal, but IMO, not at the cost of pointlessly tainting the
commit history. Again, my *humble* opinion, which is the only thing I
Figuring out whether most LLD devs want to switch seems like the point of
Indeed. To which I gave my personal opinion. If people felt setback, I
apologise, it wasn't my intent.
I have no stake in lld, and I trusted lld developers would easily
trump and disregard my comments if they weren't relevant to them.
That is one option. But the developers of LLD may be willing to more
aggressively convert. We should let them speak for themselves rather than
Again, they're absolutely free to do so, and I don't believe I have
any power in stopping them to. My opinions are as good as they want it
This has not been my experience in any part of the LLVM project. The coding
standards are extremely stable these days.
That is a good point. I take that back.