Re: A note about clang-format

["João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1532 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023, 20:45 Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we (meaning you) should lobby Eli for compile_commands.json
> > generation first :)
>
> I think that might not even be necessary because users can do that
> easily, if they know how.  See https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear, for
> example, which is GPLv3.  With it, do an initial full build with "bear
> -- gmake" instead of just "gmake".
>

Yes, I've used 'bear' before (in fact I asked you, remember?).

But -- great as it is -- it's still basically a hack which requires
actually compiling the code to learn _how_ it would be compiled. That's not
always practical, perhaps not even always possible depending on the
toolchain to use.

So it's a needless hindrance and, afair, not perfectly accurate (you had
some non-trivial ad-hoc tweak script as I recall).

I don't see a fundamental technical reason not to generate this simple file
from our own configuration script, which is the source of truth for this
information after all.  In all Cmake projects I work with, it's a matter of
setting a simple variable. I wonder if the automake world doesn't have
something similar. If it doesn't, how hard can it be to add one?

We should lower that bar so that every Emacs C hacker (including Eli and
other long timers) can benefit from LSP (with Eglot, of course ;) ). This
will be beneficial to Emacs C code and to Eglot itself of course.

And with that, it seems I have done all the lobbying myself :)

João

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2556 bytes --]