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
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
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
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
Currently, we have no front-end type for ppc_fp128 type in IR. PowerPC
target generates ppc_fp128 type from long double now, but there's option
(-mabi=(ieee|ibm)longdouble) to control it and we're going to do
transition from IBM extended double-double ppc_fp128 to IEEE fp128 in
the future.
This patch adds type __ibm128 which always represents ppc_fp128 in IR,
as what GCC did for that type. Without this type in Clang, compilation
will fail if compiling against future version of libstdcxx (which uses
__ibm128 in headers).
Although all operations in backend for __ibm128 is done by software,
only PowerPC enables support for it.
There's something not implemented in this commit, which can be done in
future ones:
- Literal suffix for __ibm128 type. w/W is suitable as GCC documented.
- __attribute__((mode(IF))) should be for __ibm128.
- Complex __ibm128 type.
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93377
Add backward compatibility tests for mapping the deprecated
ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine and
AllowAllConstructorInitializersOnNextLine to
PackConstructorInitializers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108882
The default value of the now deprecated
AllowAllConstructorInitializersOnNextLine was always true
regardless of the value of BasedOnStyle. This patch fixes the typo
in the code that handles the related backward compatibility.
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
This fixes up a regression we found from
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107267: in specific contexts, clang-format
stopped breaking after the `)` in TypeScript decorations. There were no test cases covering this, so I added one.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108538
Clean up the detection of parameter declarations in K&R C function
definitions. Also make it more precise by requiring the second
token after the r_paren to be either a star or keyword/identifier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108094
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
Some files still contained the old University of Illinois Open Source
Licence header. This patch replaces that with the Apache 2 with LLVM
Exception licence.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107528
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
The patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D105964 (58494c856a)
updated detection of function declaration names. It had the unfortunate
consequence that it started breaking between `function` and the function
name in some cases in JavaScript code.
This patch addresses this.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107267
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=50727
When processing C# Lambda expression in the indentation can goes a little wrong,
resulting the the closing } being at the wrong indentation level and meaning the remaining part of the file is
incorrectly indented.
This can be a fairly common pattern for when C# wants to peform a UI action from a thread,
and it wants to invoke that action on the main thread
Reviewed By: exv, jbcoe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104388
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
This is mostly a mechanical change, but a testcase that contains
parts of the StringRef class (clang/test/Analysis/llvm-conventions.cpp)
isn't touched.
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
C. Rayroud