https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53981
Reorder the qualifiers inside the template argument. This should handle the simple cases of
```
<const T>
<T const>
```
But only by relaxing that single letter capital variables are not possible macros
Fixes: #53981
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120710
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53962.
Given the config:
```
BasedOnStyle: LLVM
QualifierAlignment: Custom
QualifierOrder: ['constexpr', 'type']
```
The code:
```
template <typename F>
requires std::invocable<F>
constexpr constructor();
```
was incorrectly formatted to:
```
template <typename F>
requires
constexpr std::invocable<F> constructor();
```
because we considered `std::invocable<F> constexpr` as a type, not recognising the requires clause.
This patch avoids moving the qualifier across the boundary of the requires clause (checking `ClosesRequiresClause`).
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120309
Makes clang-format bail out if an in-memory source file with an
unsupported BOM is handed in instead of creating source locations that
are violating clang's assumptions.
In the future, we should add support to better transport error messages
like this through clang-format instead of printing to stderr and not
creating any changes.
Earlier during the development of {D69764} I felt it was no longer necessary to
ensure we were not trying to change code which didn't need to change
and we felt this could be removed, however I'd like to bring this back for now
as I am seeing some false positives in terms of the "replacements"
What I see is the generation of a replacement which is a "No Op" on the original
code, I think this comes about because of the merging of replacements:
```
static const a;
->
const static a;
->
static const a;
```
The replacements don't really merge, in such a way as to identify when we have gone
back to the original
Also remove the Penalty as I'm not using it (and it became marked as set and no used,
I'd rather get rid of it if it means nothing)
I think we need to do this step for now, as many people use the --output-replacements-xml
to identify that the file "needs a clang-format"
The same can be seen with the -n or --dry-run option as this uses the replacements
to drive the error/warning output.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110392
Developers these days seem to argue over east vs west const like they used to argue over tabs vs whitespace or the various bracing style. These previous arguments were mainly eliminated with tools like `clang-format` that allowed those rules to become part of your style guide. Anyone who has been using clang-format in a large team over the last couple of years knows that we don't have those religious arguments any more, and code reviews are more productive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv--IKZFVO8https://mariusbancila.ro/blog/2018/11/23/join-the-east-const-revolution/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6s6bacI424
The purpose of this revision is to try to do the same for the East/West const discussion. Move the debate into the style guide and leave it there!
In addition to the new `ConstStyle: Right` or `ConstStyle: Left` there is an additional command-line argument `--const-style=left/right` which would allow an individual developer to switch the source back and forth to their own style for editing, and back to the committed style before commit. (you could imagine an IDE might offer such a switch)
The revision works by implementing a separate pass of the Annotated lines much like the SortIncludes and then create replacements for constant type declarations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764
Kazu Hirata