We have autogenerated pragma regions in our code
which where awkwardly broken up like this:
```
#pragma region foo(bar : hello)
```
becomes
```
#pragma region foo(bar \
: hello)
```
This fixes the problem by adding region as a keyword
and handling it the same way as pragma mark
Reviewed By: curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125961
There was some duplicate code in determineStarAmpUsage and
determinePlusMinusCaretUsage
Now a `-` or `+` following `;`, `sizeof`, `co_await`, or `delete` is
regarded as a unary operator.
Now a `*` or `&` following `case` is also a unary operator.
Reviewed By: curdeius, MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121754
We currently have all those fields in AnnotatingParser::Context. They
are not inherited from the Context object for the parent scope. They
are exclusive. Now they are replaced with an enum.
`InCpp11AttributeSpecifier` and `InCSharpAttributeSpecifier` are not
handled like the rest in ContextType because they are not exclusive.
Reviewed By: curdeius, MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121907
in TokenAnnotator::parseBrace. Left is misleading, because we have a
loop and Left does not move.
Also return early.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121558
in TokenAnnotator::parseParens(). Left is misleading since we have a
loop and Left is not adjusted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121557
Before, the code:
```
int Value { get; } = 0;
int Value { init; } = 0;
```
was formatted incoherently:
```
int Value { get; } = 0;
int Value { init; }
= 0;
```
because `init` was not recognised as an accessor specifier.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121132
We have a little problem. TokenAnnotator::resetTokenMetadata() resets
the type, except for a (growing) whitelist. This is because the
TokenAnnotator visits some tokens multiple times. E.g. trying to
identify if a < is an operator less or a template opener. And in some
runs, which are bascially "reverted" the types are reset.
On the other hand, if the parser does already know the type, it should
be able to set it, without it being reset. So we introduce the ability
to set a type and make that final.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120511
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53876.
This is a solution for standard C++ casts: const_cast, dynamic_cast, reinterpret_cast, static_cast.
A general approach handling all possible casts is not possible without semantic information.
Consider the code:
```
static_cast<T>(*function_pointer_variable)(arguments);
```
vs.
```
some_return_type<T> (*function_pointer_variable)(parameters);
// Later used as:
function_pointer_variable = &some_function;
return function_pointer_variable(args);
```
In the latter case, it's not a cast but a variable declaration of a pointer to function.
Without knowing what `some_return_type<T>` is (and clang-format does not know it), it's hard to distinguish between the two cases. Theoretically, one could check whether "parameters" are types (not a cast) and "arguments" are value/expressions (a cast), but that might be inefficient (needs lots of lookahead).
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120140
This reverts commit e021987273.
This commit provokes failures in formatting tests of polly.
Cf. https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/205/builds/3320.
That's probably because of `)` being annotated as `CastRParen` instead of `Unknown` before, hence being kept on the same line with the next token.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53876.
This is a solution for standard C++ casts: const_cast, dynamic_cast, reinterpret_cast, static_cast.
A general approach handling all possible casts is not possible without semantic information.
Consider the code:
```
static_cast<T>(*function_pointer_variable)(arguments);
```
vs.
```
some_return_type<T> (*function_pointer_variable)(parameters);
// Later used as:
function_pointer_variable = &some_function;
return function_pointer_variable(args);
```
In the latter case, it's not a cast but a variable declaration of a pointer to function.
Without knowing what `some_return_type<T>` is (and clang-format does not know it), it's hard to distinguish between the two cases. Theoretically, one could check whether "parameters" are types (not a cast) and "arguments" are value/expressions (a cast), but that might be inefficient (needs lots of lookahead).
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120140
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/24781.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/38160.
This patch splits `TT_RecordLBrace` for classes/enums/structs/unions (and other records, e.g. interfaces) and uses the brace type to avoid the error-prone scanning for record token.
The mentioned bugs were provoked by the scanning being too limited (and so not considering `const` or `constexpr`, or other qualifiers, on an anonymous struct variable declaration).
Moreover, the proposed solution is more efficient as we parse tokens once only (scanning being parsing too).
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119785
We can now configure the space between requires and the following paren,
seperate for clauses and expressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113369
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53576.
There was an inconsistency in formatting of delete expressions.
Before:
```
delete (void*)a;
delete[](void*) a;
```
After this patch:
```
delete (void*)a;
delete[] (void*)a;
```
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119117
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53430.
Initially, I had a quick and dirty approach, but it led to a myriad of special cases handling comments (that may add unwrapped lines).
So I added TT_RecordLBrace type annotations and it seems like a much nicer solution.
I think that in the future it will allow us to clean up some convoluted code that detects records.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118337
- Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53227 that wrongly
indents multiline comments
- Fixes wrong detection of single-line opening braces when used along
with those only opening scopes, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token:
void foo()
{
{
int x;
}
}
- Fixes wrong recognition of first line of definition when the line
starts with block comment, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token for this leads toward skipping the line
starting with inline block comment:
/*
Some descriptions about function
*/
/*inline*/ void bar() {
}
- Fixes wrong recognition of enum when used as a type name rather than
starting definition block, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token since both actions for enum and for
definition blocks were taken place:
void foobar(const enum EnumType e) {
}
- Change to use function keyword for JavaScript instead of comparing
strings
- Resolves formatting conflict with options EmptyLineAfterAccessModifier
and EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier (prompts with --dry-run (-n) or
--output-replacement-xml but no observable change)
- Recognize long (len>=5) uppercased name taking a single line as return
type and fix the problem of adding newline below it, with adding new
token type FunctionLikeOrFreestandingMacro and marking tokens in
UnwrappedLineParser:
void
afunc(int x) {
return;
}
TYPENAME
func(int x, int y) {
// ...
}
- Remove redundant and repeated initialization
- Do no change to newlines before EOF
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117520
This factors out a pattern that comes up from time to time.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117769
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/44601.
This patch handles a bug when parsing a below example code :
```
template <class> class S;
template <class T> bool operator<(S<T> const &x, S<T> const &y) {
return x.i < y.i;
}
template <class T> class S {
int i = 42;
friend bool operator< <>(S const &, S const &);
};
int main() { return S<int>{} < S<int>{}; }
```
which parse `< <>` as `<< >`, not `< <>` in terms of tokens as discussed in discord.
1. Add a condition in `tryMergeLessLess()` considering `operator` keyword and `>`
2. Force to leave a whitespace between `tok::less` and a template opener
3. Add unit test
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117398
This style is similar to AlwaysBreak, but places closing brackets on new lines.
For example, if you have a multiline parameter list, clang-format currently only supports breaking per-parameter, but places the closing bracket on the line of the last parameter.
Function(
param1,
param2,
param3);
A style supported by other code styling tools (e.g. rustfmt) is to allow the closing brackets to be placed on their own line, aiding the user in being able to quickly infer the bounds of the block of code.
Function(
param1,
param2,
param3
);
For prior work on a similar feature, see: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33029.
Note: This currently only supports block indentation for closing parentheses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109557
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/27037
Sorry its taken so long to get to this issue! (got it before it hit its 6th birthday!)
```
void operator delete(void *foo)ATTRIB;
```
(void *foo) is incorrectly determined to be a C-Style Cast resulting in the space being removed after the ) and before the attrib, due to the detection of
```
delete (A* )a;
```
The following was previously unaffected
```
void operator new(void *foo) ATTRIB;
```
Fixes#27037
Reviewed By: curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116920
This change adds an option AfterOverloadedOperator in SpaceBeforeParensOptions to add a space between overloaded operator and opening parentheses in clang-format.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116283
My team has a vendetta against lines ending with an open parenthesis, thought it might be useful for others too 😊
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116170
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52881
It seems that clang-format off/on is not being honoured in regard to adding spaces.
My understanding of clang-format off/on is that it marks the token as finalized based on whether formatting is currently enabled or disabled.
This was causing a space to be added between the `<` and `<<` in the Cuda kernel `foo<<<1, 1>>>();`
This if doesn't solve this actual issue but ensure that clang-format is at least honoured.
Reviewed By: curdeius, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116494
Move the handling of brace wrapping after => from unwrapped line
parser to token annotator and clean up the parser.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115967
Responding to a Discord call to help {D113977} and heavily inspired by the unlanded {D34225} add some support to help coroutinues from not being formatted from
```for co_await(auto elt : seq)```
to
```
for
co_await(auto elt : seq)
```
Because of the dominance of clang-format in the C++ community, I don't think we should make it the blocker that prevents users from embracing the newer parts of the standard because we butcher the layout of some of the new constucts.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, Quuxplusone, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114859
{D110833} regressed behavior of spaces before parentheses for operators, this revision reverts that so that operators are handled as they were before.
I think in hindsight it was a mistake to try and consume operator behaviour in with the function behaviour, I think Operators can be considered a special style. Its seems the code is getting confused as to if this is a function declaration or definition.
I think latterly we can consider adding an operator parentheses specific custom option but this should have been explicitly called out as it can impact projects.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114696
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52517
clang-format is butchering modules, this could easily become a barrier to entry for modules given clang-formats wide spread use.
Prevent the following from adding spaces around the `:` (cf was considering the ':' as an InheritanceColon)
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114151
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
missing space between `T(&&)` but not between `T (&` due to && being incorrectly thought of as `UnaryOperator` rather than `PointerOrReference`
```
int operator()(T (&)[N]) { return 0; }
int operator()(T(&&)[N]) { return 1; }
```
Existing Unit tests are changed because actually I think they are originally incorrect, and are inconsistent with the (&) cases that are 4 or 5 lines above them.
Reviewed By: curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114519
1. IndexTokenSource::getNextToken cannot return nullptr; some code was
still written assuming it can; make getNextToken more resilient against
incorrect input and fix its call-sites.
2. Change various asserts that can happen due to user provided input to
conditionals in the code.
Looks like the work of {D113393} requires manual clang-formatting intervention.
Removal of the space between `auto` and `{}`
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113826
The coding style of some projects requires to have more control on space
before opening parentheses.
The goal is to add the support of clang-format to more projects.
For example adding a space only for function definitions or
declarations.
This revision adds SpaceBeforeParensOptions to configure each option
independently from one another.
Differentiel Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110833
[NFC] This patch fixes URLs containing "master". Old URLs were either broken or
redirecting to the new URL.
Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113186
Commits 58494c856a, f6bc614546, and 0fc27ef196 added special
handlings for K&R C function definitions and caused some
JavaScript/TypeScript regressions which were addressed in D107267,
D108538, and D108620. This patch would have prevented these known
regressions and will fix any unknown ones.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109582
LLVM 13.0.0-rc2 shows change of behaviour in enum and interface BraceWrapping (likely before we simply didn't wrap) but may be related to {D99840}
Logged as https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51640
This change ensure AfterEnum works for
`internal|public|protected|private enum A {` in the same way as it works for `enum A {` in C++
A similar issue was also observed with `interface` in C#
Reviewed By: krasimir, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108810
Add a new option PackConstructorInitializers and deprecate the
related options ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine and
AllowAllConstructorInitializersOnNextLine. Below is the mapping:
PackConstructorInitializers ConstructorInitializer... AllowAll...
Never - -
BinPack false -
CurrentLine true false
NextLine true true
The option value Never fixes PR50549 by always placing each
constructor initializer on its own line.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108752
TypeScript 4.3 added a new "override" keyword for class members. This
lets clang-format know about it, so it can format code using it
properly.
Reviewed By: krasimir
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108692
A follow-up to
f6bc614546
where we handle the case where the semicolon is followed by a trailing
comment.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107907
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105964 updated the detection of function
definitions. It had the unfortunate effect to start marking object
definitions with attribute-like macros as function definitions.
This addresses this issue.
Reviewed By: owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107269
I find as I develop I'm moving between many different languages C++,C#,JavaScript all the time. As I move between the file types I like to keep `clang-format` as my formatting tool of choice. (hence why I initially added C# support in {D58404}) I know those other languages have their own tools but I have to learn them all, and I have to work out how to configure them, and they may or may not have integration into my IDE or my source code integration.
I am increasingly finding that I'm editing additional JSON files as part of my daily work and my editor and git commit hooks are just not setup to go and run [[ https://stedolan.github.io/jq/ | jq ]], So I tend to go to [[ https://jsonformatter.curiousconcept.com/ | JSON Formatter ]] and copy and paste back and forth. To get nicely formatted JSON. This is a painful process and I'd like a new one that causes me much less friction.
This has come up from time to time:
{D10543}
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35856565/clang-format-a-json-filehttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18699
I would like to stop having to do that and have formatting JSON as a first class clang-format support `Language` (even if it has minimal style settings at present).
This revision adds support for formatting JSON using the inbuilt JSON serialization library of LLVM, With limited control at present only over the indentation level
This adds an additional Language into the .clang-format file to separate the settings from your other supported languages.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93528
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50702
I believe {D44609} may be too aggressive with brace wrapping rules which doesn't always apply to Lamdbas
The introduction of BeforeLambdaBody and AllowShortLambdasOnASingleLine has impact on brace handling on other block types, which I suspect we didn't see before as people may not be using the BeforeLambdaBody style
From what I can tell this can be seen by the unit test I change as its not honouring the orginal LLVM brace wrapping style for the `Fct()` function
I added a unit test from PR50702 and have removed some of the code (which has zero impact on the unit test, which kind of suggests its unnecessary), some additional attempt has been made to try and ensure we'll only break on what is actually a LamdbaLBrace
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104222
Tobias Hieta