Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 uncrustify update (73.0.8)?

["Michael Kubacki" <mikuback@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 11/13/2023 6:58 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> recently I encountered an uncrustify failure on github.
> 
> The reason was that my local uncrustify was *more recent* (73.0.8) than
> the one we use in edk2 CI (which is 73.0.3, per the edk2 file
> ".pytool/Plugin/UncrustifyCheck/uncrustify_ext_dep.yaml").
> 
> Updating the version number in the YAML file (i.e., advancing edk2 to
> version 73.0.8) seems easy enough, but:
> 
> - Do you think 73.0.8 is mature enough for adoption in edk2?
> 
>    This upstream uncrustify release was tagged in April (and I can't see
>    any more recent commits), so I assume it should be stable.
> 
Yes, it is stable. We've been using each new Uncrustify release against 
edk2 code in Project Mu during that time. I updated our code to include 
that change in September 2022 - 
https://github.com/microsoft/mu_basecore/commit/6932526bee9a2f5f3af7588923beae5e5d8fd128.

The changes since then have been additional build support for Linux and 
Windows Arm and macOS.

I originally did not bring this to edk2 right away to verify stability 
over time and reduce thrash if any other changes came in to consolidate 
overall disruption to edk2.

> - Would the version update require a whole-tree re-uncrustification?
> 
Yes. I just did it. It is relatively minor and impacts expected code areas.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5043/files

I'm happy to send that to the list if desired.

> The reason I'm not just ignoring this topic is that 73.0.8 actually
> produces *better output* than 73.0.3, at least in the one instance I
> encountered. Compare:
> 
>> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupport.c b/OvmfPkg/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupport.c
>> index 434cdca84b23..3a6f75988220 100644
>> --- a/OvmfPkg/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupport.c
>> +++ b/OvmfPkg/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupport.c
>> @@ -43,12 +43,12 @@ STATIC EFI_INCOMPATIBLE_PCI_DEVICE_SUPPORT_PROTOCOL
>>   STATIC CONST EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR  mMmio64Configuration = {
>>     ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,                   // Desc
>>     (UINT16)(                                        // Len
>> -                                                   sizeof (EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR) -
>> -                                                   OFFSET_OF (
>> -                                                     EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,
>> -                                                     ResType
>> -                                                     )
>> -                                                   ),
>> +    sizeof (EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR) -
>> +    OFFSET_OF (
>> +      EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,
>> +      ResType
>> +      )
>> +    ),
>>     ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_TYPE_MEM,                     // ResType
>>     0,                                               // GenFlag
>>     0,                                               // SpecificFlag
>> @@ -77,12 +77,12 @@ STATIC CONST EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR  mMmio64Configuration = {
>>   STATIC CONST EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR  mOptionRomConfiguration =   {
>>     ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,                   // Desc
>>     (UINT16)(                                        // Len
>> -                                                   sizeof (EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR) -
>> -                                                   OFFSET_OF (
>> -                                                     EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,
>> -                                                     ResType
>> -                                                     )
>> -                                                   ),
>> +    sizeof (EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR) -
>> +    OFFSET_OF (
>> +      EFI_ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_DESCRIPTOR,
>> +      ResType
>> +      )
>> +    ),
>>     ACPI_ADDRESS_SPACE_TYPE_MEM,                     // ResType
>>     0,                                               // GenFlag
>>     0,                                               // Disable option roms SpecificFlag
> 
> Note that 73.0.3 indents the subexpression to the "//"  comment on the
> previous line, while 73.0.8 ignores the comment -- which I think is
> justified here.
> 
> I believe this improvement may come from uncrustify commit 239c4fad745b
> ("Prevent endless indentation scenario in struct assignment",
> 2022-07-29). I think it's worth having in edk2.
> 
> CC: stewards, Pedro (commit 6ded9f50c3aa), Marcin (traditionally a big
> fan of uncrustify :))
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111177): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111177
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102559740/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-