A 1% increase in the number of clang-formatted files.
An additional 235 files have been added to LLVM, and an additional
268 files are now clang-format clean. Raising the overall % to 52%
There are now 8407 files clean out of 15902 (ignoring lit tests)
Whilst the % clang-formatted remains the same, the number
of files added to the LLVM project has risen by almost by 259.
- 190 of them have been added clang-format clean.
- 69 files have been added unformatted. (lit tests should be excluded from this number)
- 291 files have been added to the list of files that are clang-format clean
- 101 files have either become unclean or have been removed
As this updates the clang-formatted-files there are now
8139 files that are clean which we can be used as a regression test when making changes to clang-format.
```
clang-format -verbose -n -files ./clang/docs/tools/clang-formatted-files.txt
```
Original commit message: "
Original commit message: "
Original commit message: "
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
"
Additionally, this patch defines a custom exception type and thus avoids the
requirement to include header <exception>, making it easier to deploy across
systems without standard location of the c++ headers.
"
This patch also works around PR49692 and finds a way to use llvm::consumeError
in rtti mode.
"
This patch also checks if stl is built with rtti.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
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
Original commit message: "
Original commit message: "
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
"
Additionally, this patch defines a custom exception type and thus avoids the
requirement to include header <exception>, making it easier to deploy across
systems without standard location of the c++ headers.
"
This patch also works around PR49692 and finds a way to use llvm::consumeError
in rtti mode.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
Two typos, one unsused include and some leftovers from the TargetProcessControl -> ExecutorProcessControl renaming
Reviewed By: xgupta
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110260
Original commit message: "
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
"
Additionally, this patch defines a custom exception type and thus avoids the
requirement to include header <exception>, making it easier to deploy across
systems without standard location of the c++ headers.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
TextAPI/ELF has moved out into InterfaceStubs, so theres no longer a
need to seperate out TextAPI between formats.
Reviewed By: ributzka, int3, #lld-macho
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99811
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