| A Few Coding Standards | -
+
| -Introduction - |
This document attempts to describe a few coding standards that are being used +in the LLVM source tree. Although no coding standards should be regarded as absolute requirements to be followed in all instances, coding standards can be -useful.
+useful.
-This document intentionally does not prescribe fixed standards for religious +This document intentionally does not prescribe fixed standards for religious issues such as brace placement and space usage. For issues like this, follow -the golden rule: +the golden rule:
+ ++ + - --The ultimate goal of these guidelines is the increase readability and +If you are adding a significant body of source to a project, feel -free to use whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you are extending, -enhancing, or bug fixing already implemented code, use the style that is already -being used so that the source is uniform and easy to follow.+
The ultimate goal of these guidelines is the increase readability and maintainability of our common source base. If you have suggestions for topics to -be included, please mail them to Chris.
+be included, please mail them to Chris.
+| -Mechanical Source Issues - |
| -Source Code Formatting - |
Comments are one critical part of readability and maintainability. Everyone knows they should comment, so should you. :) Although we all should probably comment our code more than we do, there are a few very critical places that -documentation is very useful:
+documentation is very useful:
+
Every source file should have a header on it that +describes the basic purpose of the file. If a file does not have a header, it +should not be checked into CVS. Most source trees will probably have a standard +file header format. The standard format for the LLVM source tree looks like +this:
-//===-- llvm/Instruction.h - Instruction class definition --------*- C++ -*--=// +//===-- llvm/Instruction.h - Instruction class definition -------*- C++ -*-===// // // This file contains the declaration of the Instruction class, which is the // base class for all of the VM instructions. @@ -109,399 +130,487 @@ standard format for the LLVM source tree looks like this:-A few things to note about this particular format. The "-*- C++ -*-" -string on the first line is there to tell Emacs that the source file is a C++ -file, not a C file (Emacs assumes .h files are C files by default [Note that tag -this is not necessary in .cpp files]). The name of the file is also on the -first line, along with a very short description of the purpose of the file. -This is important when printing out code and flipping though lots of pages.//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
A few things to note about this particular format. The "-*- C++ +-*-" string on the first line is there to tell Emacs that the source file +is a C++ file, not a C file (Emacs assumes .h files are C files by default [Note +that tag this is not necessary in .cpp files]). The name of the file is also on +the first line, along with a very short description of the purpose of the file. +This is important when printing out code and flipping though lots of pages.
-The main body of the description does not have to be very long in most cases. +The main body of the description does not have to be very long in most cases. Here it's only two lines. If an algorithm is being implemented or something tricky is going on, a reference to the paper where it is published should be -included, as well as any notes or "gotchas" in the code to watch out for.
+included, as well as any notes or "gotchas" in the code to watch out for.
+Classes are one fundemental part of a good object oriented design. As such, +a class definition should have a comment block that explains what the class is used for... if it's not obvious. If it's so completely obvious your grandma could figure it out, it's probably safe to leave it out. Naming classes -something sane goes a long ways towards avoiding writing documentation. :)
+something sane goes a long ways towards avoiding writing documentation. :)
+Methods defined in a class (as well as any global functions) should also be documented properly. A quick note about what it does any a description of the borderline behaviour is all that is necessary here (unless something particularly tricky or insideous is going on). The hope is that people can figure out how to use your interfaces without reading the code itself... that is -the goal metric.
+the goal metric.
-Good things to talk about here are what happens when something unexpected -happens: does the method return null? Abort? Format your hard disk?+
Good things to talk about here are what happens when something unexpected +happens: does the method return null? Abort? Format your hard disk?
+ +In general, prefer C++ style (//) comments. They take less space, require less typing, don't have nesting problems, etc. There are a few cases -when it is useful to use C style (/* */) comments however:
+when it is useful to use C style (/* */) comments however:
+
+
To comment out a large block of code, use #if 0 and #endif. +These nest properly and are better behaved in general than C style comments.
+ +Immediately after the header file comment (and include guards if working on a header file), the minimal list of #includes required by the file should -be listed. We prefer these #includes to be listed in this order:
+be listed. We prefer these #includes to be listed in this order:
+
... and each catagory should be sorted by name.
-The "Main Module Header" file applies to .cpp file which -implement an interface defined by a .h file. This #include should always be -included first regardless of where it lives on the file system. By +The "Main Module Header" file applies to .cpp file +which implement an interface defined by a .h file. This #include should always +be included first regardless of where it lives on the file system. By including a header file first in the .cpp files that implement the interfaces, we ensure that the header does not have any hidden dependencies which are not explicitly #included in the header, but should be. It is also a form of documentation in the .cpp file to indicate where the interfaces it implements -are defined.
+are defined.
+Write your code to fit within 80 columns of text. This helps those of us who +like to print out code and look at your code in an xterm without resizing +it.
+In all cases, prefer spaces to tabs in source files. People have different prefered indentation levels, and different styles of indentation that they like... this is fine. What isn't is that different editors/viewers expand tabs out to different tab stops. This can cause your code to look completely -unreadable, and it is not worth dealing with.
+unreadable, and it is not worth dealing with.
-As always, follow the Golden Rule above: follow the +As always, follow the Golden Rule above: follow the style of existing code if your are modifying and extending it. If you like four spaces of indentation, DO NOT do that in the middle of a chunk of code with two spaces of indentation. Also, do not reindent a whole source file: it -makes for incredible diffs that are absolutely worthless.
+makes for incredible diffs that are absolutely worthless.
++
Okay, your first year of programming you were told that indentation is +important. If you didn't believe and internalize this then, now is the time. +Just do it.
+| -Compiler Issues - |
+
If your code has compiler warnings in it, something is wrong: you aren't +casting values correctly, your have "questionable" constructs in your code, or +you are doing something legitimately wrong. Compiler warnings can cover up +legitimate errors in output and make dealing with a translation unit +difficult.
+ +It is not possible to prevent all warnings from all compilers, nor is it desirable. Instead, pick a standard compiler (like gcc) that provides a good thorough set of warnings, and stick to them. At least in the case of gcc, it is possible to work around any spurious errors by changing the syntax of the code slightly. For example, an warning that annoys me occurs when -I write code like this:
+I write code like this:
if (V = getValue()) {
..
}
-+ -gcc will warn me that I probably want to use the == operator, -and that I probably mistyped it. In most cases, I haven't, and I really don't -want the spurious errors. To fix this particular problem, I rewrite the code -like this:
+
gcc will warn me that I probably want to use the == +operator, and that I probably mistyped it. In most cases, I haven't, and I +really don't want the spurious errors. To fix this particular problem, I +rewrite the code like this:
if ((V = getValue())) {
..
}
-+ -...which shuts gcc up. Any gcc warning that annoys you can be -fixed by massaging the code appropriately.
+
...which shuts gcc up. Any gcc warning that annoys you can +be fixed by massaging the code appropriately.
-These are the gcc warnings that I prefer to enable: -Wall -Winline --W -Wwrite-strings -Wno-unused+
These are the gcc warnings that I prefer to enable: -Wall +-Winline -W -Wwrite-strings -Wno-unused
++
Compilers are finally catching up to the C++ standard. Most compilers +implement most features, so you can use just about any features that you would +like. In the LLVM source tree, I have chosen to not use these features:
Exceptions: Exceptions are very useful for error reporting and handling exceptional conditions. I do not use them in LLVM because they do have an associated performance impact (by restricting restructuring of code), and parts -of LLVM are designed for performance critical purposes.
+of LLVM are designed for performance critical purposes.
-Just like most of the rules in this document, this isn't a hard and fast +Just like most of the rules in this document, this isn't a hard and fast requirement. Exceptions are used in the Parser, because it simplifies error reporting significantly, and the LLVM parser is not at all in the -critical path.
+critical path.
++this, typeinfo and dynamic cast are not used. + -Other features, such as templates (without partial specialization) can be used -freely. The general goal is to have clear, consise, performant code... if a -technique assists with that then use it.
+
Other features, such as templates (without partial specialization) can be +used freely. The general goal is to have clear, consise, performant code... if +a technique assists with that then use it.
++
+
In almost all cases, it is possible and within reason to write completely +portable code. If there are cases where it isn't possible to write portable +code, isolate it behind a well defined (and well documented) interface.
+In practice, this means that you shouldn't assume much about the host +compiler, including its support for "high tech" features like partial +specialization of templates. In fact, Visual C++ 6 could be an important target +for our work in the future, and we don't want to have to rewrite all of our code +to support it.
+| -Style Issues - |
| -The High Level Issues - |
C++ doesn't do too well in the modularity department. There is no real encapsulation or data hiding (unless you use expensive protocol classes), but it is what we have to work with. When you write a public header file (in the LLVM source tree, they live in the top level "include" directory), you are defining a -module of functionality.
+module of functionality.
-Ideally, modules should be completely independent of each other, and their +Ideally, modules should be completely independent of each other, and their header files should only include the absolute minimum number of headers possible. A module is not just a class, a function, or a namespace: it's a collection of these that defines an interface. This interface may be several functions, classes or data structures, but the important issue is how they work -together.
+together.
-In general, a module should be implemented with one or more .cpp files. -Each of these .cpp files should include the header that defines their -interface first. This ensure that all of the dependences of the module header -have been properly added to the module header itself, and are not implicit. -System headers should be included after user headers for a translation unit.+
In general, a module should be implemented with one or more .cpp +files. Each of these .cpp files should include the header that defines +their interface first. This ensure that all of the dependences of the module +header have been properly added to the module header itself, and are not +implicit. System headers should be included after user headers for a +translation unit.
++
#include hurts compile time performance. Don't do it unless you +have to, especially in header files.
+ +But wait, sometimes you need to have the definition of a class to use it, or +to inherit from it. In these cases go ahead and #include that header file. Be aware however that there are many cases where you don't need to have the full definition of a class. If you are using a pointer or reference to a class, you don't need the header file. If you are simply returning a class instance from a prototyped function or method, you don't need it. In fact, for most cases, you simply don't need the definition of a class... and not #include'ing -speeds up compilation.
+speeds up compilation.
-It is easy to try to go too overboard on this recommendation, however. You +It is easy to try to go too overboard on this recommendation, however. You must include all of the header files that you are using, either directly or indirectly (through another header file). To make sure that you don't accidently forget to include a header file in your module header, make sure to include your module header first in the implementation file (as mentioned above). This way there won't be any hidden dependencies that you'll find out -about later...
+about later...
++
Many modules have a complex implementation that causes them to use more than +one implementation (.cpp) file. It is often tempting to put the +internal communication interface (helper classes, extra functions, etc) in the +public module header file. Don't do this. :)
-If you really need to do something like this, put a private header file in the -same directory as the source files, and include it locally. This ensures that -your private interface remains private and undisturbed by outsiders.+
If you really need to do something like this, put a private header file in +the same directory as the source files, and include it locally. This ensures +that your private interface remains private and undisturbed by outsiders.
-Note however, that it's okay to put extra implementation methods a public class -itself... just make them private (or protected), and all is well.+
Note however, that it's okay to put extra implementation methods a public +class itself... just make them private (or protected), and all is well.
+| -The Low Level Issues - |
Use the "assert" function to its fullest. Check all of your preconditions and assumptions, you never know when a bug (not neccesarily even yours) might be caught early by an assertion, which reduces debugging time dramatically. The "<cassert>" header file is probably already included by the header files you are using, so it doesn't cost anything to use -it.
+it.
-To further assist with debugging, make sure to put some kind of error message in -the assertion statement (which is printed if the assertion is tripped). This +To further assist with debugging, make sure to put some kind of error message +in the assertion statement (which is printed if the assertion is tripped). This helps the poor debugging make sense of why an assertion is being made and -enforced, and hopefully what to do about it. Here is one complete example:
+enforced, and hopefully what to do about it. Here is one complete example:
inline Value *getOperand(unsigned i) {
- assert(i < Operands.size() && "getOperand() out of range!");
+ assert(i < Operands.size() && "getOperand() out of range!");
return Operands[i];
}
-Here are some examples:
+Here are some examples:
- assert(Ty->isPointerType() && "Can't allocate a non pointer type!"); + assert(Ty->isPointerType() && "Can't allocate a non pointer type!"); - assert((Opcode == Shl || Opcode == Shr) && "ShiftInst Opcode invalid!"); + assert((Opcode == Shl || Opcode == Shr) && "ShiftInst Opcode invalid!"); - assert(idx < getNumSuccessors() && "Successor # out of range!"); + assert(idx < getNumSuccessors() && "Successor # out of range!"); - assert(V1.getType() == V2.getType() && "Constant types must be identical!"); + assert(V1.getType() == V2.getType() && "Constant types must be identical!"); - assert(isa<PHINode>(Succ->front()) && "Only works on PHId BBs!"); -
+ assert(isa<PHINode>(Succ->front()) && "Only works on PHId BBs!"); + + +
You get the idea...
-You get the idea...+
+
Hard fast rule: Preincrement (++X) may be no slower than postincrement (X++) +and could very well be a lot faster than it. Use preincrementation whenever +possible.
-The semantics of postincrement include making a copy of the value being +The semantics of postincrement include making a copy of the value being incremented, returning it, and then preincrementing the "work value". For primitive types, this isn't a big deal... but for iterators, it can be a huge issue (for example, some iterators contains stack and set objects in them... copying an iterator could invoke the copy ctor's of these as well). In general, -get in the habit of always using preincrement, and you won't have a problem.
+get in the habit of always using preincrement, and you won't have a problem.
+ +The endl modifier, when used with iostreams outputs a newline to the output stream specified. In addition to doing this, however, it also flushes -the output stream. In other words, these are equivalent:
+the output stream. In other words, these are equivalent:
- cout << endl; - cout << "\n" << flush; + cout << endl; + cout << "\n" << flush;-Most of the time, you probably have no reason to flush the output stream, so it's better to use a literal "\n".
+
Most of the time, you probably have no reason to flush the output stream, so +it's better to use a literal "\n".
+C++ is a powerful language. With a firm grasp on its capabilities, you can make write effective, consise, readable and maintainable code all at the same time. By staying consistent, you reduce the amount of special cases that need to be remembered. Reducing the total number of lines of code you write is a good way -to avoid documentation, and avoid giving bugs a place to hide.
+to avoid documentation, and avoid giving bugs a place to hide.
-For these reasons, come to know and love the contents of your local +For these reasons, come to know and love the contents of your local <algorithm> header file. Know about <functional> and what it can do -for you. C++ is just a tool that wants you to master it. :)
- +for you. C++ is just a tool that wants you to master it. :)
+| -Writing Iterators - |
Here's a pretty good summary of how to write your own data structure iterators in a way that is compatible with the STL, and with a lot of other code out there -(slightly edited by Chris):
+(slightly edited by Chris):