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 c41b3b0fa0f4f70aad8deaf48bcd42a04385066c.
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 58494c856a15, f6bc614546e1, and 0fc27ef19670 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
This amends c5243c63cda3c740d6e9c7e501f6518c21688da3 to fix formatting
continued function calls with BinPacking = false.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106773
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
