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/54147.
When handling `AllowShortFunctionsOnASingleLine`, we were searching for the last line with a smaller level than the current line. The search was incorrect when the first line had the same level as the current one. This led to an unsatisfied assumption about the existence of a brace (non-comment token).
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120902
Originally filed at crbug.com/1184570.
When the name of a namespace is a macro that takes arguments,
- It fixed the indentation.
- It fixed the namepsace end comments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120931
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
In 529aa4b011
by setting the identifier info to nullptr, we started to subtly
interfere with the parts in the beginning of the function,
529aa4b011/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp (L991)
causing the preprocessor nesting to change in some cases. E.g., for the
added regression test, clang-format started incorrectly guessing the
language as C++.
This tries to address this by introducing an internal identifier info
element to use instead.
Reviewed By: curdeius, MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120315
Adds a new option InsertBraces to insert the optional braces after
if, else, for, while, and do in C++.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120217
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/53758.
Braces in loops and in `if` statements with leading (block) comments were formatted according to `BraceWrapping.AfterFunction` and not `AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine`/`AllowShortLoopsOnASingleLine`/`AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine`.
Previously, the code:
```
while (true) {
f();
}
/*comment*/ while (true) {
f();
}
```
was incorrectly formatted to:
```
while (true) {
f();
}
/*comment*/ while (true) { f(); }
```
when using config:
```
BasedOnStyle: LLVM
BreakBeforeBraces: Custom
BraceWrapping:
AfterFunction: false
AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine: false
AllowShortLoopsOnASingleLine: false
```
and it was (correctly but by chance) formatted to:
```
while (true) {
f();
}
/*comment*/ while (true) {
f();
}
```
when using enabling brace wrapping after functions:
```
BasedOnStyle: LLVM
BreakBeforeBraces: Custom
BraceWrapping:
AfterFunction: true
AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine: false
AllowShortLoopsOnASingleLine: false
```
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119649
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
The second space in `void foo() &` is always produced by clang-format,
and isn't evidence of any particular style.
Before this patch, it was considered evidence of PAS_Right, because
there is a space before a pointerlike ampersand.
This caused the following code to have "unstable" pointer alignment:
void a() &;
void b() &;
int *x;
PAS_Left, Derive=false would produce 'int* x' with other lines unchanged.
But subsequent formatting with Derive=true would produce 'int *x' again.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118921
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/31592.
This commits enables lexing of digraphs in C++11 and onwards.
Enabling them in C++03 is error-prone, as it would unconditionally treat sequences like "<:" as digraphs, even if they are followed by a single colon, e.g. "<::" would be treated as "[:" instead of "<" followed by "::". Lexing in C++11 doesn't have this problem as it looks ahead the following token.
The relevant excerpt from Lexer::LexTokenInternal:
```
// C++0x [lex.pptoken]p3:
// Otherwise, if the next three characters are <:: and the subsequent
// character is neither : nor >, the < is treated as a preprocessor
// token by itself and not as the first character of the alternative
// token <:.
```
Also, note that both clang and gcc turn on digraphs by default (-fdigraphs), so clang-format should match this behaviour.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118706
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
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/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
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/24784.
With config:
```
AllowShortFunctionsOnASingleLine: Inline
NamespaceIndentation: All
```
The code:
```
namespace Test
{
void f()
{
return;
}
}
```
was incorrectly formatted to:
```
namespace Test
{
void f() { return; }
}
```
since the function `f` was considered being inside a class/struct/record.
That's because the check was simplistic and only checked for a non-zero indentation level of the line starting `f`.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117142
In clang-format 12, `CompactNamespaces` misformatted the code when `AllowShortLambdasOnASingleLine` is set to false and `BraceWrapping.BeforeLambdaBody` is true.
Input:
```
namespace out {
namespace in {
}
} // namespace out::in
```
Expected output:
```
namespace out { namespace in {
}} // namespace out::in
```
Output from v12:
```
namespace out {
namespace in {
}
} // namespace out::in
```
Config triggering the issue:
```
---
AllowShortLambdasOnASingleLine: None
BraceWrapping:
BeforeLambdaBody : true
BreakBeforeBraces: Custom
CompactNamespaces: true
...
```
Seems there's a corner case when `AllowShortLambdasOnASingleLine` is false, and `BraceWrapping.BeforeLambdaBody` is true, that causes CompactNamespaces to stop working.
The cause was a misannotation of `{` opening brace after `namespace` as a lambda opening brace.
The regression was probably introduced with [this commit](fa0118e6e5).
Originally contributed by Ahmed Mahdy (@aybassiouny). Thank you!
Reviewed By: Wawha, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99031
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
There is some similar looking code in `TokenAnnotator.cpp` but given that I've
never worked on clang-format before I don't know what the purpose of that code
is and how it's related to `UnwrappedLineParser.cpp`.
Either way, it fixes clang-format with `BraceWrapping.AfterEnum=true` and
`AllowShortEnumsOnASingleLine=false` to behave like the documentation says.
Before this patch:
```
enum
{
A,
B
} myEnum;
```
After this patch:
```
enum {
A,
B
} myEnum;
```
According to the unittests which I had to modify this would change the LLVM
style. Please evaluate if you want to change the defaults or if you consider
the current style a bug.
Reviewed By: curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349
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
This diff extends the -style=file option to allow a config file to be specified explicitly. This is useful (for instance) when adding IDE commands to reformat code to a personal style.
Usage: `clang-format -style=file:<path/to/config/file> ...`
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius, MyDeveloperDay, zwliew
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72326
Currently, we are unable to inherit from a chain of parent configs where the outermost parent config has `BasedOnStyle: InheritParentConfig` set. This patch adds a test case for this scenario, and adds support for it.
To illustrate, suppose we have the following directory structure:
```
- e/
|- .clang-format (BasedOnStyle: InheritParentConfig) <-- outermost config
|- sub/
|- .clang-format (BasedOnStyle: InheritParentConfig)
|- sub/
|- .clang-format (BasedOnStyle: InheritParentConfig)
|- code.cpp
```
Now consider what happens when we run `clang-format --style=file /e/sub/sub/code.cpp`.
Without this patch, on a release build, only the innermost config will be applied. On a debug build, clang-format crashes due to an assertion failure.
With this patch, clang-format behaves as we'd expect, applying all 3 configs.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116371
Single-variant enums were still getting placed on a single line
even when AllowShortEnumsOnASingleLine was false. This fixes that
by checking that setting when looking to merge lines.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116188
It appears that this regressed the formatting of initializer lists in some
cases, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D114583. I'll follow-up
by adding regression tests for these.
This reverts commit c41b3b0fa0.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116000
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49804
Interaction between IndentExternBlock and AfterExternBlock means you cannot have AfterExternBlock = true and IndentExternBlock = NoIndent/Indent
This patch resolves that
```
BraceWrapping:
AfterExternBlock: true
IndentExternBlock: AfterExternBlock
```
Fixes: #49804
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115879
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52715Fixes#52715
`AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine` seems to never be checked for "Empty" as such if its used it will be considered "Always" as we only ever check `AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine != Never`
This impacts C++ as well as C# hence the slightly duplicated test.
Reviewed By: curdeius, jbcoe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115794
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
Previously, clang-format would not correctly identify preprocessor
directives directly following a conflict marker, which would result in
violating the formatter's invariants.
The provided test fails in assert mode before this change.
{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
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47936
Using the MultiLine setting for BraceWrapping.AfterControlStatement appears to disable AllowShortFunctionsOnASingleLine, even in cases without any control statements
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114521
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
Currently constructor initializer lists sometimes format incorrectly
when there is a preprocessor directive in the middle of the list.
This patch fixes the issue when parsing the initilizer list by
ignoring the preprocessor directive when checking if a block is
part of an initializer list.
rdar://82554274
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109951
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
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
Add backward compatibility tests for mapping the deprecated
ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine and
AllowAllConstructorInitializersOnNextLine to
PackConstructorInitializers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108882
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
After
9da70ab3d4
we saw a few regressions around trailing attribute definitions and in
typedefs (examples in the added test cases). There's some tension
distinguishing K&R definitions from attributes at the parser level,
where we have to decide if we need to put the type of the K&R definition
on a new unwrapped line before we have access to the rest of the line,
so we're scanning backwards and looking for a pattern like f(a, b). But
this type of pattern could also be an attribute macro, or the whole
declaration could be a typedef itself. I updated the code to check for a
typedef at the beginning of the line and to not consider raw identifiers
as possible first K&R declaration (but treated as an attribute macro
instead). This is not 100% correct heuristic, but I think it should be
reasonably good in practice, where we'll:
* likely be in some very C-ish code when using K&R style (e.g., stuff
that uses `struct name a;` instead of `name a;`
* likely be in some very C++-ish code when using attributes
* unlikely mix up the two in the same declaration.
Ideally, we should only decide to add the unwrapped line before the K&R
declaration after we've scanned the rest of the line an noticed the
variable declarations and the semicolon, but the way the parser is
organized I don't see a good way to do this in the current parser, which
only has good context for the previously visited tokens. I also tried
not emitting an unwrapped line there and trying to resolve the situation
later in the token annotator and the continuation indenter, and that
approach seems promising, but I couldn't make it to work without
messing up a bunch of other cases in unit tests.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107950
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
Previously, with AllowShortEnumsOnASingleLine disabled, enums that would have otherwise fit on a single line would always put the opening brace on its own line.
This patch ensures that these enums will only put the brace on its own line if the existing attachment rules indicate that it should.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99840
Break an unwrapped line before the first parameter declaration in a
K&R C function definition.
This fixes PR51074.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106112
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
This introduces ReferenceAlignment style option modeled around
PointerAlignment.
Style implementors can specify Left, Right, Middle or Pointer to
follow whatever the PointerAlignment option specifies.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104096
Currently the lambda body indents relative to where the lambda signature is located. This instead lets the user
choose to align the lambda body relative to the parent scope that contains the lambda declaration. Thus:
someFunction([] {
lambdaBody();
});
will always have the same indentation of the body even when the lambda signature goes on a new line:
someFunction(
[] {
lambdaBody();
});
whereas before lambdaBody would be indented 6 spaces.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102706
21c18d5a04
improved the detection of multiplication in function call argument lists,
but unintentionally regressed the handling of function type casts (there
were no tests covering those).
This patch improves the detection of function type casts and adds a few tests.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104209
This allows to set a different indent width for preprocessor statements.
Example:
#ifdef __linux_
# define FOO
#endif
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103286
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
This inheritance list style has been widely adopted by Symantec,
a division of Broadcom Inc. It breaks after the commas that
separate the base-specifiers:
class Derived : public Base1,
private Base2
{
};
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103204
We've accumulated a scary amount of local patches to this directory. I
tried to merge them all, but if your favorite change is missing please
reapply it manually (and send it upstream).
A need for such an option came up in a few libc++ reviews. That's because libc++ has both code in C++03 and newer standards.
Currently, it uses `Standard: C++03` setting for clang-format, but this breaks e.g. u8"string" literals.
Also, angle brackets are the only place where C++03-specific formatting needs to be applied.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101344
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
Fixes https://llvm.org/PR41870.
Checks for newlines in option Style.EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier are now based on the formatted new lines and not on the new lines in the file.
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99503
The current logic for access modifiers in classes ignores the option 'MaxEmptyLinesToKeep=1'. It is therefore impossible to have a coding style that requests one empty line after an access modifier. The patch allows the user to configure how many empty lines clang-format should add after an access modifier. This will remove lines if there are to many and will add them if there are missing.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237
This patch fixes left pointer alignment after pointer qualifiers of
operators. Currently "operator void const*()" is formatted with a space between
const and pointer despite setting PointerAlignment to Left.
AFAICS this has been broken since clang-format 10.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99458
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 commit removes the old way of handling Whitesmiths mode in favor of just setting the
levels during parsing and letting the formatter handle it from there. It requires a bit of
special-casing during the parsing, but ends up a bit cleaner than before. It also removes
some of switch/case unit tests that don't really make much sense when dealing with
Whitesmiths.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94500
... without an active column limit.
Before line comments were not touched at all with ColumnLimit == 0.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96896
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
Adds support for coding styles that make a separate indentation level for access modifiers, such as Code::Blocks or QtCreator.
The new option, `IndentAccessModifiers`, if enabled, forces the content inside classes, structs and unions (“records”) to be indented twice while removing a level for access modifiers. The value of `AccessModifierOffset` is disregarded in this case, aiming towards an ease of use.
======
The PR (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19056) had an implementation attempt by @MyDeveloperDay already (https://reviews.llvm.org/D60225) but I've decided to start from scratch. They differ in functionality, chosen approaches, and even the option name. The code tries to re-use the existing functionality to achieve this behavior, limiting possibility of breaking something else.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94661
This allows the define BasedOnStyle: InheritParentConfig and then
clang-format looks into the parent directories for their
.clang-format and takes that as a basis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93844
Adds an option to [clang-format] which sorts headers in an alphabetical manner using case only for tie-breakers. The options is off by default in favor of the current ASCIIbetical sorting style.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95017
mydeveloperday