NOTE: some files are being removed from those files that are clang-formatted
which means some lack of formatting is slipping through the net on reviews
This change now generates that list, and the change to clang-format allows
us to run clang-format quickly over these files via the list of files.
clang-format.exe -verbose -n --files=./clang/docs/tools/clang-formatted-files.txt
```
Clang-formating 7926 files
Formatting [1/7925] clang/bindings/python/tests/cindex/INPUTS/header1.h
..
Formatting [7925/7925] utils/bazel/llvm-project-overlay/llvm/include/llvm/Config/config.h
```
This is needed because putting all those files on the command line is too
long, and invoking 7900+ clang-formats is much slower (too slow to be honest)
Using this method it takes on 7.5 minutes (on my machine) to run
`clang-format -n` over all of the files (7925), this should result in us
testing any change quickly and easily.
We should be able to use rerunning this list to ensure that we don't regress
clang-format over a large code base, but also use it to ensure none of the
previous files which were 100% clang-formatted remain so.
(which the LLVM premerge checks should be enforcing)
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111000
Currently on http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormattedStatus.html there are format stats on files no actually inside the tree but generated by build scripts. These are usually copied from somewhere else. Right now for example there are files from `llvm/utils/release/llvm-package...`. Adding these files bloats the list while not giving an accurate representation of how formatted the repo is.
This addresses this issue by checking the git index and ignoring any folder that doesn't contain tracked files.
I'm still unsure whether it would be better to just do away with the `os.walk` method and just check over every file returned from `git ls-index <project-root>`.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82707
Summary:
Any change to clang-format is tested with the unit tests, However sometimes the better approach is to run it over a very large fully formatted source tree and then inspect the differences. This seems to be a source of many of the regressions found by @krasimir and by @sylvestre.ledru and @Abpostelnicu who run it over the Mozilla sources, but often these regressions are only found after changes have been committed.
LLVM itself would be a good dog-fooding candidate for similar tests except such a large proportion of the tree is not 100% clang formatted, as such you are never aware if the change comes from a change to clang-format or just because the tree has not been formatted first.
The following review is for a small python tool which scans the whole of the LLVM source tree and counts the number of files which have one or more clang-format violations.
This revision contains the tool and the output from the initial run of the tool and the generated documentation which looks like the following
Reviewers: krasimir, JakeMerdichAMD, sammccall, curdeius, bollu, alexshap, jdoerfert, DavidTruby, sscalpone
Reviewed By: curdeius
Subscribers: dschuff, aheejin, fedor.sergeev, ilya-biryukov, simoncook, cryptoad, arphaman, jfb, kadircet, mstorsjo, s.egerton, usaxena95, aartbik, phosek, sstefan1, cfe-commits, sylvestre.ledru, Abpostelnicu, krasimir
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80627
mydeveloperday