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 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
