Summary:
Addresses PR40696 - https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40696
The BreakAfterReturnType didn't work if it had a single arguments which was a template with an integer template parameter
```
int foo(A<8> a) { return a; }
```
When run with the Mozilla style. would not break after the `int`
```
int TestFn(A<8> a)
{
return a;
}
```
This revision resolves this issue by allowing numeric constants to be considered function parameters if if seen inside `<>`
Reviewers: djasper, klimek, JonasToth, krasimir, reuk, alexfh
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59309
llvm-svn: 357837
As the unit test demonstrates, subtracting 1 from the offset was unnecessary.
The only user of this function was the plist file emitter (in Static Analyzer
and ARCMigrator). It means that a lot of Static Analyzer's plist arrows
are in fact off by one character. The patch carefully preserves this
completely incorrect behavior and causes no functional change,
i.e. no plist format breakage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59977
llvm-svn: 357823
Summary:
Use cases:
- a tool that dumps the heuristic used for each header in a project can
be used to evaluate changes to the heuristic
- we want to expose this information to users in clangd as it affects
accuracy/reliability of editor features
- express interpolation tests more directly
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov, klimek
Subscribers: ioeric, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60194
llvm-svn: 357770
Summary: Adds a basic version of Transformer, a library supporting the concise specification of clang-based source-to-source transformations. A full discussion of the end goal can be found on the cfe-dev list with subject "[RFC] Easier source-to-source transformations with clang tooling".
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Reviewed By: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: ioeric, ABataev, mgorny, jfb, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59376
llvm-svn: 357768
Summary:
Introduces a utility library in Refactoring/ to collect routines related to
source-code manipulation. In this change, we move "extended-range" functions
from the FixIt library (in clangTooling) to this new library.
We need to use this functionality in Refactoring/ and cannot access it if it
resides in Tooling/, because that would cause clangToolingRefactor to depend on
clangTooling, which would be a circular dependency.
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov, ioeric
Reviewed By: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60269
llvm-svn: 357764
ObjCPropertyDecl should use the category interface as a context similar to what is done for methods.
Previously category methods would be printed as `::property`; now they are printed as `Class::property`.
llvm-svn: 357720
Summary:
r357567 started to regroup include block for Google style; it was meant to apply
only for C++. This patch reverts this for ObjC.
Reviewers: ioeric
Reviewed By: ioeric
Subscribers: thakis, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60263
llvm-svn: 357695
Summary:
Currently clang-format would always emit a replacement for multi-block #include
sections if `IBS_Regroup`, even if the sections are correct:
```
% cat ~/test.h
#include <a.h>
#include "b.h"
% bin/clang-format --output-replacements-xml -style=google ~/test.h
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<replacements xml:space='preserve' incomplete_format='false'>
<replacement offset='0' length='30'>#include <a.h> #include "b.h"</replacement>
</replacements>
%
```
This change makes clang-format not emit replacements in this case.
The logic is similar to the one implemented for Java in r354452.
Reviewers: ioeric
Reviewed By: ioeric
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60199
llvm-svn: 357599
Summary: Adds a basic version of Transformer, a library supporting the concise specification of clang-based source-to-source transformations. A full discussion of the end goal can be found on the cfe-dev list with subject "[RFC] Easier source-to-source transformations with clang tooling".
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Reviewed By: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: mgorny, jfb, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59376
llvm-svn: 357576
Summary:
Import sorting of java file, incorrectly move import statement to after a function beginning with the word import.
Make 1 character change to regular expression to ensure there is always at least one space/tab after the word import
Previously clang-format --style="LLVM" would format
```
import X;
class C {
void m() {
importFile();
}
}
```
as
```
class C {
void m() {
importFile();
import X;
}
}
```
Reviewers: djasper, klimek, reuk, JonasToth
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59684
llvm-svn: 357345
This patch aims to add support for the following rules from the JUCE coding standards:
- Always put a space before an open parenthesis that contains text - e.g. foo (123);
- Never put a space before an empty pair of open/close parenthesis - e.g. foo();
Patch by Reuben Thomas
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55170
llvm-svn: 357344
FileManager constructs a VFS in its constructor if it isn't passed one,
and there's no way to reset it. Make that contract clear by returning a
reference from its accessor.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59388
llvm-svn: 357038
Summary:
This option `AllowShortLambdasOnASingleLine` similar to the other `AllowShort*` options, but applied to C++ lambdas.
Reviewers: djasper, klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: MyDeveloperDay, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57687
llvm-svn: 357027
Summary:
Revision r356575 had the unfortunate consequence that now clang-format never
detects an ObjC call expression after `&&`.
This patch tries harder to distinguish between C++17 structured bindings and
ObjC call expressions and adds a few regression tests.
Reviewers: klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59774
llvm-svn: 356928
This reverts commit r356835. This patch causes a regression, see the
test below:
verifyFormat("// Detached comment\n\n"
"// Leading comment\n"
"syntax = \"proto2\"; // trailing comment\n\n"
"// in foo.bar package\n"
"package foo.bar; // foo.bar package\n");
llvm-svn: 356912
Summary:
Top-level "package" and "import" statements should generally be kept on one
line, for all languages.
Reviewers: sammccall, krasimir, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: MyDeveloperDay, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59627
Patch By: dchai (Donald Chai)
llvm-svn: 356835
Summary:
`OMPClause` is the base class, it is not descendant from **any**
other class, therefore for it to work with e.g.
`VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<>`, it needs to be handled here.
Reviewers: sbenza, bkramer, pcc, klimek, hokein, gribozavr, aaron.ballman, george.karpenkov
Reviewed By: gribozavr, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: guansong, jdoerfert, alexfh, ABataev, cfe-commits
Tags: #openmp, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57112
llvm-svn: 356675
Summary:
This revision adds basic support for formatting C# files with clang-format, I know the barrier to entry is high here so I'm sending this revision in to test the water as to whether this might be something we'd consider landing.
Tracking in Bugzilla as:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40850
Justification:
C# code just looks ugly in comparison to the C++ code in our source tree which is clang-formatted.
I've struggled with Visual Studio reformatting to get a clean and consistent style, I want to format our C# code on saving like I do now for C++ and i want it to have the same style as defined in our .clang-format file, so it consistent as it can be with C++. (Braces/Breaking/Spaces/Indent etc..)
Using clang format without this patch leaves the code in a bad state, sometimes when the BreakStringLiterals is set, it fails to compile.
Mostly the C# is similar to Java, except instead of JavaAnnotations I try to reuse the TT_AttributeSquare.
Almost the most valuable portion is to have a new Language in order to partition the configuration for C# within a common .clang-format file, with the auto detection on the .cs extension. But there are other C# specific styles that could be added later if this is accepted. in particular how `{ set;get }` is formatted.
Reviewers: djasper, klimek, krasimir, benhamilton, JonasToth
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mgorny, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58404
llvm-svn: 356662
Summary: rL356570 introduced a test which only passes with the default openmp library, libomp, and fails with other openmp libraries, such as libgomp. Explicitly choose libomp.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: guansong, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59609
llvm-svn: 356614
Summary:
Sometime after 6.0.0 and the current trunk 9.0.0 the following code would be considered as objective C and not C++
Reported by: https://twitter.com/mattgodbolt/status/1096188576503644160
$ clang-format.exe test.h
Configuration file(s) do(es) not support Objective-C: C:\clang\build\.clang-format
--- test.h --
```
std::vector<std::pair<std::string,std::string>> C;
void foo()
{
for (auto && [A,B] : C)
{
std::string D = A + B;
}
}
```
The following code fixes this issue of incorrect detection
Reviewers: djasper, klimek, JonasToth, reuk
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59546
llvm-svn: 356575
Summary:
https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP-API-Specification-5.0.pdf, page 3:
```
structured block
For C/C++, an executable statement, possibly compound, with a single entry at the
top and a single exit at the bottom, or an OpenMP construct.
COMMENT: See Section 2.1 on page 38 for restrictions on structured
blocks.
```
```
2.1 Directive Format
Some executable directives include a structured block. A structured block:
• may contain infinite loops where the point of exit is never reached;
• may halt due to an IEEE exception;
• may contain calls to exit(), _Exit(), quick_exit(), abort() or functions with a
_Noreturn specifier (in C) or a noreturn attribute (in C/C++);
• may be an expression statement, iteration statement, selection statement, or try block, provided
that the corresponding compound statement obtained by enclosing it in { and } would be a
structured block; and
Restrictions
Restrictions to structured blocks are as follows:
• Entry to a structured block must not be the result of a branch.
• The point of exit cannot be a branch out of the structured block.
C / C++
• The point of entry to a structured block must not be a call to setjmp().
• longjmp() and throw() must not violate the entry/exit criteria.
```
Of particular note here is the fact that OpenMP structured blocks are as-if `noexcept`,
in the same sense as with the normal `noexcept` functions in C++.
I.e. if throw happens, and it attempts to travel out of the `noexcept` function
(here: out of the current structured-block), then the program terminates.
Now, one of course can say that since it is explicitly prohibited by the Specification,
then any and all programs that violate this Specification contain undefined behavior,
and are unspecified, and thus no one should care about them. Just don't write broken code /s
But i'm not sure this is a reasonable approach.
I have personally had oss-fuzz issues of this origin - exception thrown inside
of an OpenMP structured-block that is not caught, thus causing program termination.
This issue isn't all that hard to catch, it's not any particularly different from
diagnosing the same situation with the normal `noexcept` function.
Now, clang static analyzer does not presently model exceptions.
But clang-tidy has a simplisic [[ https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-exception-escape.html | bugprone-exception-escape ]] check,
and it is even refactored as a `ExceptionAnalyzer` class for reuse.
So it would be trivial to use that analyzer to check for
exceptions escaping out of OpenMP structured blocks. (D59466)
All that sounds too great to be true. Indeed, there is a caveat.
Presently, it's practically impossible to do. To check a OpenMP structured block
you need to somehow 'get' the OpenMP structured block, and you can't because
it's simply not modelled in AST. `CapturedStmt`/`CapturedDecl` is not it's representation.
Now, it is of course possible to write e.g. some AST matcher that would e.g.
match every OpenMP executable directive, and then return the whatever `Stmt` is
the structured block of said executable directive, if any.
But i said //practically//. This isn't practical for the following reasons:
1. This **will** bitrot. That matcher will need to be kept up-to-date,
and refreshed with every new OpenMP spec version.
2. Every single piece of code that would want that knowledge would need to
have such matcher. Well, okay, if it is an AST matcher, it could be shared.
But then you still have `RecursiveASTVisitor` and friends.
`2 > 1`, so now you have code duplication.
So it would be reasonable (and is fully within clang AST spirit) to not
force every single consumer to do that work, but instead store that knowledge
in the correct, and appropriate place - AST, class structure.
Now, there is another hoop we need to get through.
It isn't fully obvious //how// to model this.
The best solution would of course be to simply add a `OMPStructuredBlock` transparent
node. It would be optimal, it would give us two properties:
* Given this `OMPExecutableDirective`, what's it OpenMP structured block?
* It is trivial to check whether the `Stmt*` is a OpenMP structured block (`isa<OMPStructuredBlock>(ptr)`)
But OpenMP structured block isn't **necessarily** the first, direct child of `OMP*Directive`.
(even ignoring the clang's `CapturedStmt`/`CapturedDecl` that were inserted inbetween).
So i'm not sure whether or not we could re-create AST statements after they were already created?
There would be other costs to a new AST node: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40563#c12
```
1. You will need to break the representation of loops. The body should be replaced by the "structured block" entity.
2. You will need to support serialization/deserialization.
3. You will need to support template instantiation.
4. You will need to support codegen and take this new construct to account in each OpenMP directive.
```
Instead, there **is** an functionally-equivalent, alternative solution, consisting of two parts.
Part 1:
* Add a member function `isStandaloneDirective()` to the `OMPExecutableDirective` class,
that will tell whether this directive is stand-alone or not, as per the spec.
We need it because we can't just check for the existance of associated statements,
see code comment.
* Add a member function `getStructuredBlock()` to the OMPExecutableDirective` class itself,
that assert that this is not a stand-alone directive, and either return the correct loop body
if this is a loop-like directive, or the captured statement.
This way, given an `OMPExecutableDirective`, we can get it's structured block.
Also, since the knowledge is ingrained into the clang OpenMP implementation,
it will not cause any duplication, and //hopefully// won't bitrot.
Great we achieved 1 of 2 properties of `OMPStructuredBlock` approach.
Thus, there is a second part needed:
* How can we check whether a given `Stmt*` is `OMPStructuredBlock`?
Well, we can't really, in general. I can see this workaround:
```
class FunctionASTVisitor : public RecursiveASTVisitor<FunctionASTVisitor> {
using Base = RecursiveASTVisitor<FunctionASTVisitor>;
public:
bool VisitOMPExecDir(OMPExecDir *D) {
OmpStructuredStmts.emplace_back(D.getStructuredStmt());
}
bool VisitSOMETHINGELSE(???) {
if(InOmpStructuredStmt)
HI!
}
bool TraverseStmt(Stmt *Node) {
if (!Node)
return Base::TraverseStmt(Node);
if (OmpStructuredStmts.back() == Node)
++InOmpStructuredStmt;
Base::TraverseStmt(Node);
if (OmpStructuredStmts.back() == Node) {
OmpStructuredStmts.pop_back();
--InOmpStructuredStmt;
}
return true;
}
std::vector<Stmt*> OmpStructuredStmts;
int InOmpStructuredStmt = 0;
};
```
But i really don't see using it in practice.
It's just too intrusive; and again, requires knowledge duplication.
.. but no. The solution lies right on the ground.
Why don't we simply store this `i'm a openmp structured block` in the bitfield of the `Stmt` itself?
This does not appear to have any impact on the memory footprint of the clang AST,
since it's just a single extra bit in the bitfield. At least the static assertions don't fail.
Thus, indeed, we can achieve both of the properties without a new AST node.
We can cheaply set that bit right in sema, at the end of `Sema::ActOnOpenMPExecutableDirective()`,
by just calling the `getStructuredBlock()` that we just added.
Test coverage that demonstrates all this has been added.
This isn't as great with serialization though. Most of it does not use abbrevs,
so we do end up paying the full price (4 bytes?) instead of a single bit.
That price, of course, can be reclaimed by using abbrevs.
In fact, i suspect that //might// not just reclaim these bytes, but pack these PCH significantly.
I'm not seeing a third solution. If there is one, it would be interesting to hear about it.
("just don't write code that would require `isa<OMPStructuredBlock>(ptr)`" is not a solution.)
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40563 | PR40563 ]].
Reviewers: ABataev, rjmccall, hfinkel, rsmith, riccibruno, gribozavr
Reviewed By: ABataev, gribozavr
Subscribers: mgorny, aaron.ballman, steveire, guansong, jfb, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #openmp
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59214
llvm-svn: 356570
Summary:
Redecl chains of function template specializations are not handled well
currently. We want to handle them similarly to functions, i.e. try to
keep the structure of the original AST as much as possible. The aim is
to not squash a prototype with a definition, rather we create both and
put them in a redecl chain.
Reviewers: a_sidorin, shafik, a.sidorin
Subscribers: rnkovacs, dkrupp, Szelethus, gamesh411, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58668
llvm-svn: 356455
Summary:
Redecl chains of class template specializations are not handled well
currently. We want to handle them similarly to functions, i.e. try to
keep the structure of the original AST as much as possible. The aim is
to not squash a prototype with a definition, rather we create both and
put them in a redecl chain.
Reviewers: a_sidorin, shafik, a.sidorin
Subscribers: rnkovacs, dkrupp, Szelethus, gamesh411, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58673
llvm-svn: 356452
Addresses PR40999 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40999
Private fields and methods in JavaScript would get incorrectly indented
(it sees them as preprocessor directives and hence left aligns them)
In this revision `#identifier` tokens `tok::hash->tok::identifier` are
merged into a single new token `tok::identifier` with the `#` contained
inside the TokenText.
Before:
```
class Example {
pub = 1;
static pub2 = "foo";
static #priv2 = "bar";
method() { this.#priv = 5; }
static staticMethod() {
switch (this.#priv) {
case '1':
break;
}
}
this.#privateMethod(); // infinite loop
}
static #staticPrivateMethod() {}
}
```
After this fix the code will be correctly indented
```
class Example {
pub = 1;
#priv = 2;
static pub2 = "foo";
static #priv2 = "bar";
method() { this.#priv = 5; }
static staticMethod() {
switch (this.#priv) {
case '1':
#priv = 3;
break;
}
}
#privateMethod() {
this.#privateMethod(); // infinite loop
}
static #staticPrivateMethod() {}
}
```
NOTE: There might be some JavaScript code out there which uses the C
processor to preprocess .js files
http://www.nongnu.org/espresso/js-cpp.html. It's not clear how this
revision or even private fields and methods would interact.
Patch originally by MyDeveloperDays (thanks!).
llvm-svn: 356449
Before:
const x = veryLongIdentifier
`hello`;
After:
const x =
veryLongIdentifier`hello`;
While it's allowed to have the template string and tag identifier
separated by a line break, currently the clang-format output is not
stable when a break is forced. Additionally, disallowing a line break
makes it clear that the identifier is actually a tag for a template
string.
Patch originally by mitchellwills (thanks!).
llvm-svn: 356447
Summary:
Previously, when the renamed spelling is ambiguous, we simply use the
full-qualfied name (with leading "::"). This patch makes it try adding
additional specifiers one at a time until name is no longer ambiguous,
which allows us to find better disambuguated spelling.
Reviewers: kadircet, gribozavr
Subscribers: jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59487
llvm-svn: 356446
We already handle pointers and references, member ptrs are just another
special case. Fixes PR40732.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59387
llvm-svn: 356250
Summary:
Import type location in case of TypeSpec and TypeSpecWithTemplate.
Without this fix the imported NespedNameSpecifierLoc will have an
invalid begin location.
Reviewers: a.sidorin, shafik, a_sidorin, martong
Reviewed By: a_sidorin
Subscribers: rnkovacs, jdoerfert, dkrupp, martong, Szelethus, gamesh411, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55358
llvm-svn: 356151
rC355158 added an optional language parameter to getLLVMStyle(), but this parameter was not used in getPredefinedStyle(). Because unit tests directly specify the style, this codepath wasn't tested. Add an additional unit test for getStyle().
llvm-svn: 356099
Summary:
Introduces variants of `getText` and `getSourceRange` that extract the source text of an AST node potentially with a trailing token.
Some of the new functions manipulate `CharSourceRange`s, rather than `SourceRange`s, because they document and dynamically enforce their type. So, this revision also updates the corresponding existing FixIt functions to manipulate `CharSourceRange`s. This change is not strictly necessary, but seems like the correct choice, to keep the API self-consistent.
This revision is the first in a series intended to improve the abstractions available to users for writing source-to-source transformations. A full discussion of the end goal can be found on the cfe-dev list with subject "[RFC] Easier source-to-source transformations with clang tooling".
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Reviewed By: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: kimgr, riccibruno, JonasToth, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58556
llvm-svn: 356095
Summary:
Addressing: PR25010 - https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25010
Code like:
```
if(true) var++;
else {
var--;
}
```
is reformatted to be
```
if (true)
var++;
else {
var--;
}
```
Even when `AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine` is true
The following revision comes from a +1'd suggestion in the PR to support AllowShortIfElseStatementsOnASingleLine
This suppresses the clause prevents the merging of the if when there is a compound else
Reviewers: klimek, djasper, JonasToth, alexfh, krasimir, reuk
Reviewed By: reuk
Subscribers: reuk, Higuoxing, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59087
llvm-svn: 356031
Summary:
Addressing: PR25010 - https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25010
Code like:
```
if(true) var++;
else {
var--;
}
```
is reformatted to be
```
if (true)
var++;
else {
var--;
}
```
Even when `AllowShortIfStatementsOnASingleLine` is true
The following revision comes from a +1'd suggestion in the PR to support AllowShortIfElseStatementsOnASingleLine
This suppresses the clause prevents the merging of the if when there is a compound else
Reviewers: klimek, djasper, JonasToth, alexfh, krasimir, reuk
Reviewed By: reuk
Subscribers: reuk, Higuoxing, jdoerfert, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59087
llvm-svn: 356029
Balazs Keri