Summary:
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.
Reviewers: djasper, ioeric, krasimir, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed by: MyDeveloperDay
Contributed by: tnorth
Subscribers: cfe-commits, lebedev.ri, MyDeveloperDay, klimek, sammccall, mitchell-stellar
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72326
This option add a line break then a lambda is inside a function call.
Reviewers : djasper, klimek, krasimir, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44609
Summary:
From `clang-format` version 3.7.0 and up, , there is no way to keep following format of ObjectiveC block:
```
- (void)_aMethod
{
[self.test1 t:self w:self callback:^(typeof(self) self, NSNumber *u, NSNumber *v) {
u = c;
}]
}
```
Regardless of the change in `.clang-format` configuration file, all parameters will be lined up so that colons will be on the same column, like following:
```
- (void)_aMethod
{
[self.test1 t:self
w:self
callback:^(typeof(self) self, NSNumber *u, NSNumber *v) {
u = c;
}]
}
```
Considering with ObjectiveC, the first code style is cleaner & more readable for some people, I've added a config option: `ObjCDontBreakBeforeNestedBlockParam` (boolean) so that if it is enable, the first code style will be favored.
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Patch By: ghvg1313
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70926
Summary:
The documentation for IndentCaseLabels claimed that the "Switch
statement body is always indented one level more than case labels". This
is technically false for the code block immediately following the label.
Its closing bracket aligns with the start of the label.
If the case label are not indented, it leads to a style where the
closing bracket of the block aligns with the closing bracket of the
switch statement, which can be hard to parse.
This change introduces a new option, IndentCaseBlocks, which when true
treats the block as a scope block (which it technically is).
(Note: regenerated ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst using tools/dump_style.py)
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Patch By: capn
Tags: #clang-format, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72276
Summary: Adds a new option SpaceBeforeBrackets to add spaces before brackets (i.e. int a[23]; -> int a [23];) This is present as an option in the Visual Studio C++ code formatting settings, but there was no matching setting in clang-format.
Reviewers: djasper, MyDeveloperDay, mitchell-stellar
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: llvm-commits, cfe-commits, klimek
Patch by: Anteru
Tags: #clang, #clang-format, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D6920
Summary:
By additional regex match, grouping of main include can be enabled in files that are not normally considered as a C/C++ source code.
For example, this might be useful in templated code, where template implementations are being held in *Impl.hpp files.
On the occassion, 'assume-filename' option description was reworded as it was misleading. It has nothing to do with `style=file` option and it does not influence sourced style filename.
Reviewers: rsmith, ioeric, krasimir, sylvestre.ledru, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: MyDeveloperDay, cfe-commits
Patch by: furdyna
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67750
Summary:
Format.h is used to generate ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst, the layout of the comments is critical to the rst file. Accidentally clang-formatting Format.h can lead to the .rst changing.
This revision simply add // clang-format off/on statement around the areas who formatting needs to be maintained, mainly around the options that are related to what happens when the line breaks due to `ColumnLimit` (which is what is happening to the comment)
This allows Format.h to be clang-formatted without causing a change in the documentation when dump_format_style.py is rerun, which is also part of the revision.
Reviewers: mitchell-stellar, klimek, sammccall, owenpan
Reviewed By: mitchell-stellar
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69951
Summary:
This revision is the last in a series of revisions to return `clang/doc/tools/dump_format_style.py` to be being able to parse Format.h without needing to manually merge the ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst file.
The final modification to dump_format_style.py is needed following the addition of a nested enumeration inside a nested structure following the introduction of {D68296}
Prior related revisions will allow for a fully clang-formatted `clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h` to once again be used at the source.
{D69951}
{D69433}
{D69404}
Reviewers: mitchell-stellar, klimek, sammccall, owenpan
Reviewed By: mitchell-stellar
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang-format, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70003
Summary:
a change {D67541} cause LanguageStandard to now be subtly different from all other clang-format options, in that the Enum value (less the prefix) is not always allowed as valid as the configuration option.
This caused the ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst and the Format.h to diverge so that the ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst could no longer be generated from the Format.h using dump_format_stlye.py
This fix tried to remedy that:
1) by allowing an additional comment (in Format.h) after the enum to be used as the `in configuration ( XXXX )` text, and changing the dump_format_style.py to support that.
This makes the following code:
```
enum {
...
LS_Cpp03, // c++03
LS_Cpp11, // c++11
...
};
```
would render as:
```* ``LS_Cpp03`` (in configuration: ``c++03``)
* ``LS_Cpp11`` (in configuration: ``c++11``)
```
And we also move the deprecated alias into the text of the enum (otherwise it won't be added at the end as an option)
This patch includes a couple of other whitespace changes which help bring Format.h and ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst almost back into line and regeneratable... (there is still one more)
Reviewers: klimek, mitchell-stellar, sammccall
Reviewed By: mitchell-stellar, sammccall
Subscribers: mrexodia, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69433
Summary: The Google C++ and Chromium style guides are broken in the clang-format docs. This patch updates them.
Reviewers: djasper, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Patch by: m4tx
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61256
llvm-svn: 373844
Summary:
This patch makes the `SpacesInSquareBrackets` setting also apply to C++ lambdas with parameters.
Looking through the revision history, it appears support for only array brackets was added, and lambda brackets were ignored. Therefore, I am inclined to think it was simply an omission, rather than a deliberate choice.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17887 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D4944.
Reviewers: MyDeveloperDay, reuk, owenpan
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Patch by: mitchell-stellar
Tags: #clang-format, #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68473
llvm-svn: 373821
Summary:
Change the BraceWrappingFlags' AfterControlStatement from a bool to an enum with three values:
* "Never": This is the default, and does not do any brace wrapping after control statements.
* "MultiLine": This only wraps braces after multi-line control statements (this really only happens when a ColumnLimit is specified).
* "Always": This always wraps braces after control statements.
The first and last options are backwards-compatible with "false" and "true", respectively.
The new "MultiLine" option is useful for when a wrapped control statement's indentation matches the subsequent block's indentation. It makes it easier to see at a glance where the control statement ends and where the block's code begins. For example:
```
if (
foo
&& bar )
{
baz();
}
```
vs.
```
if (
foo
&& bar ) {
baz();
}
```
Short control statements (1 line) do not wrap the brace to the next line, e.g.
```
if (foo) {
bar();
} else {
baz();
}
```
Reviewers: sammccall, owenpan, reuk, MyDeveloperDay, klimek
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: MyDeveloperDay, cfe-commits
Patch By: mitchell-stellar
Tags: #clang-format, #clang, #clang-tools-extra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68296
llvm-svn: 373647
Summary:
The historical context:
- clang-format was written when C++11 was current,
and the main language-version concern was >> vs > > template-closers.
An option was added to allow selection of the 03/11 behavior, or auto-detection.
- there was no option to choose simply "latest standard" so anyone who didn't
ever want 03 behavior or auto-detection specified Cpp11.
- In r185149 this option started to affect lexer mode.
- no options were added to cover c++14, as parsing/formatting
didn't change that much. The usage of Cpp11 to mean "latest" became
codified e.g. in r206263
- c++17 added some new constructs. These were mostly backwards-compatible and so
not used in old programs, so having no way to turn them off was OK.
- c++20 added some new constructs and keywords (e.g. co_*) that changed the
meaning of existing programs, and people started to complain that
the c++20 parsing couldn't be turned off.
New plan:
- Default ('Auto') behavior remains unchanged: parse as latest, format
template-closers based on input.
- Add new 'Latest' option that more clearly expresses the intent "use
modern features" that many projects have chosen for their .clang-format files.
- Allow pinning to *any* language version, using the same name as clang -std:
c++03, c++11, c++14 etc. These set precise lexer options, and any
clang-format code depending on these can use a >= check.
- For backwards compatibility, `Cpp11` is an alias for `Latest`, not `c++11`.
This matches the historical documented semantics of this option.
This spelling (and `Cpp03`) are deprecated.
Reviewers: klimek, modocache
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67541
llvm-svn: 373439
Summary:
This new Style rule is made as a part of adding support for NetBSD KNF in clang-format. NetBSD have it's own priority of includes which should be followed while formatting NetBSD code. This style sorts the Cpp Includes according to the priorities of NetBSD, as mentioned in the [Style Guide](http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/style?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup)
The working of this Style rule shown below:
**Configuration:**
This revision introduces a new field under IncludeCategories named `SortPriority` which defines the priority of ordering the `#includes` and the `Priority` will define the categories for grouping the `#include blocks`.
Reviewers: cfe-commits, mgorny, christos, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, rdwampler, christos, mgorny, krytarowski
Patch By: Manikishan
Tags: #clang, #clang-format
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695
llvm-svn: 372919
Summary:
This patch adds support for the Whitesmiths indentation style to clang-format. It’s an update to a patch submitted in 2015 (D6833), but reworks it to use the newer API.
There are still some issues with this patch, primarily around `switch` and `case` support. The added unit test won’t currently pass because of the remaining issues.
Reviewers: mboehme, MyDeveloperDay, djasper
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: krasimir, MyDeveloperDay, echristo, cfe-commits
Patch By: @timwoj (Tim Wojtulewicz)
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67627
llvm-svn: 372497
Summary:
This option determines whether goto labels are indented according to scope. Setting this option to false causes goto labels to be flushed to the left.
This is mostly copied from [[ http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-September/045014.html | this patch ]] submitted by Christian Neukirchen that didn't make its way into trunk.
```
true: false:
int f() { vs. int f() {
if (foo()) { if (foo()) {
label1: label1:
bar(); bar();
} }
label2: label2:
return 1; return 1;
} }
```
Reviewers: klimek, MyDeveloperDay
Reviewed By: MyDeveloperDay
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang, #clang-tools-extra
Patch by: tetsuo-cpp
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67037
llvm-svn: 371719
This option behaves similarly to AlignConsecutiveDeclarations and
AlignConsecutiveAssignments, aligning the assignment of C/C++
preprocessor macros on consecutive lines.
I've worked in many projects (embedded, mostly) where header files full
of large, well-aligned "#define" blocks are a common pattern. We
normally avoid using clang-format on these files, since it ruins any
existing alignment in said blocks. This style option will align "simple"
PP macros (no parameters) and PP macros with parameter lists on
consecutive lines.
Related Bugzilla entry (thanks mcuddie):
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20637
Patch by Nick Renieris (VelocityRa)!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28462
llvm-svn: 364938
Summary:
Other macros are used to declare namespaces, and should thus be handled
similarly. This is the case for crpcut's TESTSUITE macro, or for
unittest-cpp's SUITE macro:
TESTSUITE(Foo) {
TEST(MyFirstTest) {
assert(0);
}
} // TESTSUITE(Foo)
This patch deals with this cases by introducing a new option to specify
lists of namespace macros. Internally, it re-uses the system already in
place for foreach and statement macros, to ensure there is no impact on
performance.
Reviewers: krasimir, djasper, klimek
Reviewed By: klimek
Subscribers: acoomans, cfe-commits, klimek
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813
llvm-svn: 362740
Summary:
Adds a `TypenameMacros` configuration option that causes certain identifiers to be handled in a way similar to `typeof()`.
This is enough to:
- Prevent misinterpreting declarations of pointers to such types as expressions (`STACK_OF(int) * foo` -> `STACK_OF(int) *foo`),
- Avoid surprising line breaks in variable/struct field declarations (`STACK_OF(int)\nfoo;` -> `STACK_OF(int) foo;`, see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30353).
Reviewers: Typz, krasimir, djasper
Reviewed By: Typz
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57184
llvm-svn: 361986
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:
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:
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
I assume the example is wrong as it's clearly missing line-breaks before
braces.
I just ran the example through clang-format with .clang-format like
this:
BreakBeforeBraces: Allman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58941
llvm-svn: 355365
Summary:
Some macros are used in the body of function, and actually contain the trailing semicolon: they should thus be automatically followed by a new line, and not get merged with the next line. This is for example the case with Qt's Q_UNUSED macro:
void foo(int a, int b) {
Q_UNUSED(a)
return b;
}
This patch deals with these cases by introducing a new option to specify list of statement macros. This re-uses the system already in place for foreach macros, to ensure there is no impact on performance.
Reviewers: krasimir, djasper, klimek
Reviewed By: krasimir
Subscribers: acoomans, mgrang, alexfh, klimek, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33440
llvm-svn: 343602
