2014-12-06 07:18:01 +08:00
|
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
|
|
|
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
|
|
|
|
|
<link href="style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
|
|
|
|
|
<title>LLDB Tutorial</title>
|
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="www_title">
|
|
|
|
|
The <strong>LLDB</strong> Coding Conventions
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div id="container">
|
|
|
|
|
<div id="content">
|
|
|
|
|
<!--#include virtual="sidebar.incl"-->
|
|
|
|
|
<div id="middle">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="post">
|
2014-12-06 08:28:05 +08:00
|
|
|
<h1 class ="postheader">LLDB Coding Conventions</h1>
|
2014-12-06 07:18:01 +08:00
|
|
|
<div class="postcontent">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-11 07:22:25 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>The LLDB coding conventions differ in a few important respects from LLVM.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-12 02:07:47 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
Note that <a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormat.html">clang-format</a> will deal with
|
|
|
|
|
most of this for you, as such is suggested to run on patches before uploading. Note however that
|
|
|
|
|
clang-format is not smart enough to detect instances of humans intentionally trying to line variables
|
|
|
|
|
up on a particular column boundary, and it will reformat them to remove this "extraneous" whitespace.
|
|
|
|
|
While this is usually the correct behavior, LLDB does have many uses of manually aligned types and
|
|
|
|
|
fields, so please be aware of this behavior of clang-format when editing this type of code.
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Important</b>: Where not explicitly outlined below, assume that the
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html">LLVM Coding Conventions</a> are to be followed.
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>Source code width:</h3>
|
2014-12-06 07:18:01 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>lldb does not follow the 80 character line restriction llvm imposes. In our
|
|
|
|
|
experience, trying to fit C++ code into an 80 character line results in code that
|
|
|
|
|
is awkward to read, and the time spent trying to find good indentation points to
|
|
|
|
|
avoid this would be much better spent on thinking about your code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>More importantly, the restriction induces coders to choose overly abbreviated names
|
|
|
|
|
to make them better fit in 80 characters. In our opinion choosing good descriptive
|
|
|
|
|
names is much more important than fitting in 80 characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-11 07:22:25 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>In lldb the limit for code lines is 120 characters because it gets awkward to scan
|
|
|
|
|
longer lines even on a fairly big monitor, and we've found at that length you seldom
|
|
|
|
|
have to make code look ugly to get it to wrap.
|
2014-12-06 07:18:01 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>However you will see some instances of longer lines. The most common occurrence is in
|
|
|
|
|
the options tables for the CommandInterpreter, which contain the help strings as well as
|
|
|
|
|
a bunch of important but hard to remember fields. These tables are much easier to read if
|
|
|
|
|
all the fields line up vertically, and don't have help text interleaved in between the lines.
|
2015-03-11 07:22:25 +08:00
|
|
|
This is another thing to keep in mind when running clang-format, as it will always wrap at
|
|
|
|
|
120, so you will need to tweak its output when running against intentionally too-long lines.
|
2014-12-06 07:18:01 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3>Indentation:</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>lldb uses 4 character indentation. We find this makes the code structure much easier to
|
|
|
|
|
see when scanning code, and since we aren't trying to fit code into 80 characters, the
|
|
|
|
|
benefit of not wasting 2 out of the 80 precious spaces per indentation level is moot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>We also use the Allman brace style rather than putting the initial brace at the end
|
|
|
|
|
of the braced line. This makes the block structure of the code much easier to see on
|
|
|
|
|
an initial scan, and most folks have big enough monitors nowadays that saving a few
|
|
|
|
|
vertical lines isn't sufficiently important to outweigh this benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Though the llvm coding conventions don't specify this, llvm/clang tend to declare and
|
|
|
|
|
define methods by putting the return type and the method name on the same line. lldb
|
|
|
|
|
puts the qualifiers and return type on a line by themselves and then the method name on
|
|
|
|
|
the next line, i.e.:
|
|
|
|
|
<code><pre><tt>
|
|
|
|
|
virtual int
|
|
|
|
|
MethodName ();
|
|
|
|
|
</code></pre></tt>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>When you are scanning a header file, that makes the method names stand out more easily,
|
|
|
|
|
though at the cost of an extra line. When you have a editor that scrolls smoothly, it's
|
|
|
|
|
easy to move through pages so the extra line is less important than the ease of picking
|
|
|
|
|
out the method names, which is what you generally are scanning for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3> Names:</h3>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>lldb's naming conventions are different and slightly more restrictive than the llvm
|
|
|
|
|
ones. The goal is to make it easy to tell from immediate context the lifespan
|
|
|
|
|
and what kind of entity a given name represents, which makes reading code you are not familiar
|
|
|
|
|
with much easier. lldb uses the following conventions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Macro definitions when needed are in all caps, nothing else should be in all caps. </li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Types and classes are in CamelCase with an initial capital.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Methods are also in CamelCase with an initial capital. The initial capital for methods
|
|
|
|
|
has the handy benefit that it gets our method names into a different namespace
|
|
|
|
|
than the standard C/C++ library functions, which tend to all be lower-cased.
|
|
|
|
|
There are also places in lldb where we wrap clang objects in classes appropriate to lldb,
|
|
|
|
|
and the difference from the llvm convention here actually makes it easier to tell
|
|
|
|
|
whether you are using the clang object directly or are going through the lldb wrapper.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li> All variables are written in lower case, with "_" as the word separator. We find that
|
|
|
|
|
using a different capitalization and word separation convention makes variables and methods/types
|
|
|
|
|
immediately visually distinct, resulting in code which is much easier to read.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li> class ivars all start with "m_". It is important to be able to tell ivars from local
|
|
|
|
|
variables, and this makes the distinction easily apparent. Some other coding conventions
|
|
|
|
|
use an initial "_", but this seems much harder to spot. Also it allows:</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Class statics and other global variables start with "g_". You should be suspicious of all
|
|
|
|
|
global variables, so having them stand out lexically is a good thing.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li>We also use the suffixes "_sp" and "_up" for shared and unique pointer variables. Since
|
|
|
|
|
these have very different lifecycle behaviors it is worthwhile to call them out
|
|
|
|
|
specially. You will see some "_ap" suffixes around. There should be no auto_ptr variables
|
|
|
|
|
left in lldb, but when we converted to unique_ptr's not all the names were changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to change these to "_up" when you touch them for some other reason.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
<li> enumerations that might end up being in the lldb SB API's should all be written like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<pre><code><tt>
|
|
|
|
|
typedef enum EnumName
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
eEnumNameFirstValue,
|
|
|
|
|
eEnumNameSecondValue,
|
|
|
|
|
} EnumName;
|
|
|
|
|
</pre></code></tt>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>This redundancy is important because the enumerations that find their way through SWIG into
|
|
|
|
|
Python will show up as lldb.eEnumNameFirstValue, so including the enum name
|
|
|
|
|
in the value name disambiguates them in Python.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Since we've started allowing C++11 in lldb, we have started using "enum class" instead of straight
|
|
|
|
|
enums. That is fine for enums that will only ever exist on the lldb_private side of lldb, but err on
|
|
|
|
|
the side of caution here on't do that for any enums that might find their way into the SB API's, since then
|
|
|
|
|
you will have to change them so we can get them through SWIG.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p> Also, on a more general note, except when you are using a temporary whose lifespan is not
|
|
|
|
|
far past its definition, never use one or two character names for ivars. Always use something
|
|
|
|
|
descriptive, and as far as possible use the same name for the same kind of thing (or the name
|
|
|
|
|
with an appropriate prefix.) That way if I'm looking at one use of a type, I can search on the
|
|
|
|
|
variable name and see most of the other uses of the same type of thing. That makes it much easier
|
|
|
|
|
to get quickly up to speed on how that type should be used.
|
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
