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
Add new option called InsertEmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier. Empty line
before access modifier is inerted if this option is set to true (which
is the default value, because clang-format always inserts empty lines
before access modifiers), otherwise empty lines are removed.
Fixes issue #16518.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93846
* 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: curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95017
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
Owen