For comments that start after a new line, currently, the comments are
being indented. This happens because the OriginalWhitespaceRange
considers newlines on the range. Therefore, when AlignTrailingComments:
Kind: Leave, deduct the number of newlines before the token to calculate
the number of spaces for trailing comments.
Fixes#59203.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139029
This change breaks no existing tests but does fix the linked issue.
Declarations of operator overloads are annotated with
`TT_FunctionDeclarationName` on the `operator` keyword, which is already
being checked for when aligning, so the extra `kw_operator` doesn't seem
to be necessary. (just for reference, it was added in
rG92b397fb9d55ccdf4632c2b1b15b4a0ee417cf74 / 92b397fb9d)
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55733
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137223
Summary:
clang-format makes multiple passes when #if/#else preprocessor blocks are found. It will make
one pass for normal code and code in the #if block, and then it will make another pass for just
the code in #else blocks. This often results in invalid alignment inside the else blocks because
they do not have any scope or indentAndNestingLevel context from their surrounding tokens/lines.
This patch remedies that by caching any initial indentAndNestingLevel from a second pass and
not breaking/returning early when a scope change is detected.
Fixes#36070
Reviewers: HazardyKnusperkeks, MyDeveloperDay
Tags: clang, clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134042
The combination of
- AlignConsecutiveAssignments.Enabled = true
- BinPackArguments = false
would result in the first continuation line of a braced-init-list being
improperly indented (missing a shift) when in a continued function call.
Indentation was also wrong for braced-init-lists continuing a
direct-list-initialization. Check for opening braced lists in
continuation and ensure that the correct shift occurs.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55360
Reviewed By: curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125162
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55407.
Given configuration:
```
UseTab: Always
PointerAlignment: Right
AlignConsecutiveDeclarations: true
```
Before, the pointer was misaligned in this code:
```
void f() {
unsigned long long big;
char *ptr; // misaligned
int i;
}
```
That was due to the fact that when handling right-aligned pointers, the Spaces were changed but StartOfTokenColumn was not.
Also, a tab was used not only for indentation but for spacing too when using `UseTab: ForIndentation` config option:
```
void f() {
unsigned long long big;
char *ptr; // \t after char
int i;
}
```
Reviewed By: owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125528
The ShouldShiftBeAdded lambda checks if extra space should be
added before the wrapped part of a braced list. If the first
element of the list is wrapped, no extra space should be added.
Fixes#55161.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124956
I have lost count of the number of times this has been reported, but it fundamentally comes down to the fact that the "AlignArrayLeft/Right" function is fundamentally broken for non-square arrays.
As a result, a pointer can end up running off the end of the array structure, I've spent the last 2 weekends trying to rewrite this algorithm but I've struggled to get it aligned correctly.
This is an interim fix, that ignores all array that are non-square and leaves them alone. I think this can allow us to close out most of the crashes (if not all).
I think this can help reduce the number of bugs coming in that are duplicates.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53748https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/51767https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/51277
Reviewed By: curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks, feg208
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121069
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52772.
This patch fixes the formatting of the code:
```
auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = {};
auto b = g([] {
return;
});
```
which should be left as is, but before this patch was formatted to:
```
auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = {};
auto b = g([] {
return;
});
```
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115972
This commit resolves GitHub issue #45895 (Bugzilla #46550), to
add or remove empty line between definition blocks including
namespaces, classes, structs, enums and functions.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116314
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.
This re-applies the old patch D27651, which was never landed, into the
latest "main" branch, without understanding the code. I just applied
the changes "mechanically" and made it compiling again.
This makes the right pointer alignment working as expected.
Fixes https://llvm.org/PR27353
For instance
const char* const* v1;
float const* v2;
SomeVeryLongType const& v3;
was formatted as
const char *const * v1;
float const * v2;
SomeVeryLongType const &v3;
This patch keep the *s or &s aligned to the right, next to their variable.
The above example is now formatted as
const char *const *v1;
float const *v2;
SomeVeryLongType const &v3;
It is a pity that this still does not work with clang-format in 2021,
even though there was a fix available in 2016. IMHO right pointer alignment
is the default case in C, because syntactically the pointer belongs to the
variable.
See
int* a, b, c; // wrong, just the 1st variable is a pointer
vs.
int *a, *b, *c; // right
Prominent example is the Linux kernel coding style.
Some styles argue the left pointer alignment is better and declaration
lists as shown above should be avoided. That's ok, as different projects
can use different styles, but this important style should work too.
I hope that somebody that has a better understanding about the code,
can take over this patch and land it into main.
For now I must maintain this fork to make it working for our projects.
Cheers,
Gerhard.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103245
Clang-format was indenting the lines following the `?` in the added test
case by +5 instead of +4. This only happens in a very specific
situation, where the `?` is followed by a multiline block comment, as in
the example. This fix addresses this without regressing any of the
existing tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101033
Breaking a string literal or a function calls arguments with
AlignConsecutiveDeclarations or AlignConsecutiveAssignments did misalign
the continued line. E.g.:
void foo() {
int myVar = 5;
double x = 3.14;
auto str = "Hello"
"World";
}
or
void foo() {
int myVar = 5;
double x = 3.14;
auto str = "Hello"
"World";
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98214
This is a bug fix of https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49175
The expected code format:
unsigned int* a;
int* b;
unsigned int Const* c;
The actual code after formatting (without this patch):
unsigned int* a;
int* b;
unsigned int Const* c;
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97137
Currently, empty lines and comments break alignment of assignments on consecutive
lines. This makes the AlignConsecutiveAssignments option an enum that allows controlling
whether empty lines or empty lines and comments should be ignored when aligning
assignments.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, tinloaf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93986
Currently, empty lines and comments break alignment of assignments on consecutive
lines. This makes the AlignConsecutiveAssignments option an enum that allows controlling
whether empty lines or empty lines and comments should be ignored when aligning
assignments.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, tinloaf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93986
This allows to ignore for example Qts emit when
AlignConsecutiveDeclarations is set, otherwise it is parsed as a type
and it results in some misformating:
unsigned char MyChar = 'x';
emit signal(MyChar);
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93776
The underlying ABI forces FormatToken to have a lot of padding.
Currently (on x86-64 linux) `sizeof(FormatToken) == 288`. After this patch
`sizeof(FormatToken) == 232`.
No functional changes.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84306
Summary:
The following revision follows D80115 since @MyDeveloperDay and I apparently both had the same idea at the same time, for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45816 and my efforts on tooling support for AMDVLK, respectively.
This option aligns adjacent bitfield separators across lines, in a manner similar to AlignConsecutiveAssignments and friends.
Example:
```
struct RawFloat {
uint32_t sign : 1;
uint32_t exponent : 8;
uint32_t mantissa : 23;
};
```
would become
```
struct RawFloat {
uint32_t sign : 1;
uint32_t exponent : 8;
uint32_t mantissa : 23;
};
```
This also handles c++2a style bitfield-initializers with AlignConsecutiveAssignments.
```
struct RawFloat {
uint32_t sign : 1 = 0;
uint32_t exponent : 8 = 127;
uint32_t mantissa : 23 = 0;
}; // defaults to 1.0f
```
Things this change does not do:
- Align multiple comma-chained bitfield variables. None of the other
AlignConsecutive* options seem to implement that either.
- Detect bitfields that have a width specified with something other
than a numeric literal (ie, `int a : SOME_MACRO;`). That'd be fairly
difficult to parse and is rare.
Patch By: JakeMerdichAMD
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: cfe-commits, MyDeveloperDay
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80176
Summary:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43845
When a '//comment' trails a consecutive alignment, it adds a whitespace
replacement within the comment token. This wasn't handled correctly in
the alignment code, which treats it as a whole token and thus double
counts it.
This can wrongly trigger the "line too long, it'll wrap" alignment-break
condition with specific lengths, causing the alignment to break for
seemingly no reason.
Patch By: JakeMerdichAMD
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: kostyakozko, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79465
Summary:
When multiple ternary operators are chained, e.g. like an if/else-if/
else-if/.../else sequence, clang-format will keep aligning the colon
with the question mark, which increases the indent for each
conditionals:
int a = condition1 ? result1
: condition2 ? result2
: condition3 ? result3
: result4;
This patch detects the situation (e.g. conditionals used in false branch
of another conditional), to avoid indenting in that case:
int a = condition1 ? result1
: condition2 ? result2
: condition3 ? result3
: result4;
When BreakBeforeTernaryOperators is false, this will format like this:
int a = condition1 ? result1 :
condition2 ? result2 :
conditino3 ? result3 :
result4;
This formatting style is referenced here:
https://www.fluentcpp.com/2018/02/27/replace-else-if-ternary-operator/
and here:
https://marcmutz.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/top-5-reasons-you-should-love-your-ternary-operator/
Reviewers: krasimir, djasper, klimek, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: hokein, dyung, MyDeveloperDay, acoomans, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50078
Summary:
Currently the 'AlignConsecutive*' options incorrectly align across
elif and else statements, even if they are very far away and across
unrelated preprocessor macros.
This failed since on preprocessor run 2+, there is not enough context
about the #ifdefs to actually differentiate one block from another,
causing them to align across different blocks or even large sections of
the file.
Eg, with AlignConsecutiveAssignments:
```
\#if FOO // Run 1
\#else // Run 1
int a = 1; // Run 2, wrong
\#endif // Run 1
\#if FOO // Run 1
\#else // Run 1
int bar = 1; // Run 2
\#endif // Run 1
```
is read as
```
int a = 1; // Run 2, wrong
int bar = 1; // Run 2
```
The approach taken to fix this was to add a new flag to Token that
forces breaking alignment across groups of lines (MustBreakAlignBefore)
in a similar manner to the existing flag that forces a line break
(MustBreakBefore). This flag is set for the first Token after a
preprocessor statement or diff conflict marker.
Fixes #25167,#31281
Patch By: JakeMerdichAMD
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79388
When multiple ternary operators are chained, e.g. like an if/else-if/
else-if/.../else sequence, clang-format will keep aligning the colon
with the question mark, which increases the indent for each
conditionals:
int a = condition1 ? result1
: condition2 ? result2
: condition3 ? result3
: result4;
This patch detects the situation (e.g. conditionals used in false branch
of another conditional), to avoid indenting in that case:
int a = condition1 ? result1
: condition2 ? result2
: condition3 ? result3
: result4;
When BreakBeforeTernaryOperators is false, this will format like this:
int a = condition1 ? result1 :
condition2 ? result2 :
conditino3 ? result3 :
result4;
Summary:
Use spaces instead of tabs for alignment with UT_ForContinuationAndIndentation to make the code aligned for any tab/indent width.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38381
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Patch By: fickert
Tags: #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75034
Maíra Canal