Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54522.
This fixes regression introduced in 5e5efd8a91.
Before the culprit commit, macros in WhitespaceSensitiveMacros were correctly formatted even if their closing parenthesis weren't followed by semicolon (or, to be precise, when they were followed by a newline).
That commit changed the type of the macro token type from TT_UntouchableMacroFunc to TT_FunctionLikeOrFreestandingMacro.
Correct formatting (with `WhitespaceSensitiveMacros = ['FOO']`):
```
FOO(1+2)
FOO(1+2);
```
Regressed formatting:
```
FOO(1 + 2)
FOO(1+2);
```
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan, ksyx
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123676
Before, the code:
```
int Value { get; } = 0;
int Value { init; } = 0;
```
was formatted incoherently:
```
int Value { get; } = 0;
int Value { init; }
= 0;
```
because `init` was not recognised as an accessor specifier.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121132
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
We have a little problem. TokenAnnotator::resetTokenMetadata() resets
the type, except for a (growing) whitelist. This is because the
TokenAnnotator visits some tokens multiple times. E.g. trying to
identify if a < is an operator less or a template opener. And in some
runs, which are bascially "reverted" the types are reset.
On the other hand, if the parser does already know the type, it should
be able to set it, without it being reset. So we introduce the ability
to set a type and make that final.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120511
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
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
Detect requires expressions in more unusable contexts. This is far from
perfect, but currently we have no good metric to decide between a
requires expression and a trailing requires clause.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138
The l_brace token in a macro definition should not be set to
TT_FunctionLBrace.
This patch could have fixed#42087.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118969
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/53227 that wrongly
indents multiline comments
- Fixes wrong detection of single-line opening braces when used along
with those only opening scopes, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token:
void foo()
{
{
int x;
}
}
- Fixes wrong recognition of first line of definition when the line
starts with block comment, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token for this leads toward skipping the line
starting with inline block comment:
/*
Some descriptions about function
*/
/*inline*/ void bar() {
}
- Fixes wrong recognition of enum when used as a type name rather than
starting definition block, causing crashes due to duplicated
replacements on the same token since both actions for enum and for
definition blocks were taken place:
void foobar(const enum EnumType e) {
}
- Change to use function keyword for JavaScript instead of comparing
strings
- Resolves formatting conflict with options EmptyLineAfterAccessModifier
and EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier (prompts with --dry-run (-n) or
--output-replacement-xml but no observable change)
- Recognize long (len>=5) uppercased name taking a single line as return
type and fix the problem of adding newline below it, with adding new
token type FunctionLikeOrFreestandingMacro and marking tokens in
UnwrappedLineParser:
void
afunc(int x) {
return;
}
TYPENAME
func(int x, int y) {
// ...
}
- Remove redundant and repeated initialization
- Do no change to newlines before EOF
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117520
LLVM Programmer’s Manual strongly discourages the use of `std::vector<bool>` and suggests `llvm::BitVector` as a possible replacement.
Currently, some users of `std::vector<bool>` cannot switch to `llvm::BitVector` because it doesn't implement the `pop_back()` and `back()` functions.
To enable easy transition of `std::vector<bool>` users, this patch implements `llvm::BitVector::pop_back()` and `llvm::BitVector::back()`.
Reviewed By: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117115
This factors out a pattern that comes up from time to time.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117769
