- 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
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
Move the handling of brace wrapping after => from unwrapped line
parser to token annotator and clean up the parser.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115967
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 c41b3b0fa0.
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
The alignment fix introduced by https://reviews.llvm.org/D104388 caused a regression whereby formatting of code that follows the lambda block is incorrect i.e. separate expressions are put on the same line.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115738
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.
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
Make all code go through FormatTokenSource instead of going around it, which
makes changes to TokenSource brittle.
Add LLVM_DEBUG in FormatTokenSource to be able to follow the token stream.
1. IndexTokenSource::getNextToken cannot return nullptr; some code was
still written assuming it can; make getNextToken more resilient against
incorrect input and fix its call-sites.
2. Change various asserts that can happen due to user provided input to
conditionals in the code.
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
TypeScript 4.3 added a new "override" keyword for class members. This
lets clang-format know about it, so it can format code using it
properly.
Reviewed By: krasimir
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108692
Clean up the detection of parameter declarations in K&R C function
definitions. Also make it more precise by requiring the second
token after the r_paren to be either a star or keyword/identifier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108094
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
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=50727
When processing C# Lambda expression in the indentation can goes a little wrong,
resulting the the closing } being at the wrong indentation level and meaning the remaining part of the file is
incorrectly indented.
This can be a fairly common pattern for when C# wants to peform a UI action from a thread,
and it wants to invoke that action on the main thread
Reviewed By: exv, jbcoe
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104388
WG14 adopted N2645 and WG21 EWG has accepted P2334 in principle (still
subject to full EWG vote + CWG review + plenary vote), which add
support for #elifdef as shorthand for #elif defined and #elifndef as
shorthand for #elif !defined. This patch adds support for the new
preprocessor directives.
This fixes two errors:
Previously, clang-format was splitting up type identifiers from the
nullable ?. This changes this behavior so that the type name sticks with
the operator.
Additionally, nullable operators attached to return types in interface
functions were not parsed correctly. Digging deeper, it looks like
interface bodies were being parsed differently than classes and structs,
causing MustBeDeclaration to be incorrect for interface members. They
now share the same logic.
One other change is reintroducing the CSharpNullable type independent of
JsTypeOptionalQuestion. Despite having a similar semantic purpose, their
actual syntax differs quite a bit.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101860
Commit
f7f9f94b2e
changed the indent of ObjC method arguments from +4 to +2, if the method
occurs after a block statement. I believe this was unintentional and there
was insufficient ObjC test coverage to catch this.
Example: `clang-format -style=google test.mm`
before:
```
void aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(int c) {
if (c) {
f();
}
[dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:^(fffffffffffffff gggggggg) {
f(SSSSS, c);
}];
}
```
after:
```
void aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(int c) {
if (c) {
f();
}
[dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:^(fffffffffffffff gggggggg) {
f(SSSSS, c);
}];
}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99063
This commit removes the old way of handling Whitesmiths mode in favor of just setting the
levels during parsing and letting the formatter handle it from there. It requires a bit of
special-casing during the parsing, but ends up a bit cleaner than before. It also removes
some of switch/case unit tests that don't really make much sense when dealing with
Whitesmiths.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94500
Adds support for coding styles that make a separate indentation level for access modifiers, such as Code::Blocks or QtCreator.
The new option, `IndentAccessModifiers`, if enabled, forces the content inside classes, structs and unions (“records”) to be indented twice while removing a level for access modifiers. The value of `AccessModifierOffset` is disregarded in this case, aiming towards an ease of use.
======
The PR (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19056) had an implementation attempt by @MyDeveloperDay already (https://reviews.llvm.org/D60225) but I've decided to start from scratch. They differ in functionality, chosen approaches, and even the option name. The code tries to re-use the existing functionality to achieve this behavior, limiting possibility of breaking something else.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay, curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94661
ksyx