Before:
for (id foo in[self getStuffFor : bla]) {
}
Now:
for (id foo in [self getStuffFor:bla]) {
}
"in" is treated as loop keyword if the line starts with "for", and as a
regular identifier else. To check for "in", its IdentifierInfo is handed
through a few layers.
llvm-svn: 174889
In google style, trailing comments are separated by two spaces. This
patch fixes the counting of these spaces and prevents clang-format from
creating a line with 81 columns.
llvm-svn: 174879
With this patch, the formatter introduces 'fake' parenthesis according
to the operator precedence of binary operators.
Before:
return aaaa & AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA || bbbb &
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB || cccc & CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ||
dddd & DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD;
f(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa &&
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
After:
return aaaa & AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ||
bbbb & BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ||
cccc & CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ||
dddd & DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD;
f(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
Future improvements:
- Get rid of some of the hacky ways to nicely format certain constructs.
- Merge this parser and the AnnotatingParser as we now have several parsers
that analyze (), [], etc.
llvm-svn: 174714
With this patch, clang-format can analyze the input file for two
properties:
1. Is "int *a" or "int* a" more common.
2. Are non-C++03 constructs used, e.g. A<A<A>>.
With Google-style, clang-format will now use the more common style for
(1) and format C++03 compatible, unless it finds C++11 constructs in the
input.
llvm-svn: 174504
We can now format stuff like:
- (void)doSomethingWith:(GTMFoo *)theFoo
rect:(NSRect)theRect
interval:(float)theInterval {
[myObject doFooWith:arg1 //
name:arg2
error:arg3];
}
This seems to fix everything mentioned in llvm.org/PR14939.
llvm-svn: 174364
This combines several changes:
* Calculation token type (e.g. for * and &) in the AnnotatingParser.
* Calculate the scope binding strength in the AnnotatingParser.
* Let <> and [] scopes bind stronger than () and {} scopes.
* Add minimal debugging output.
llvm-svn: 174307
In order to end up with good solutions, clang-format needs to try
"all" combinations of line breaks, evaluate them and select the
best one. Before, we have done this using a DFS with memoization
and cut-off conditions. However, this approach is very limited
as shown by the huge static initializer in the attachment of
llvm.org/PR14959.
Instead, this new implementation uses a variant of Dijkstra's
algorithm to do a prioritized BFS over the solution space.
Some numbers:
lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp: 1.5s -> 0.15s
Attachment of PR14959: 10min+ (didn't finish) -> 10s
No functional changes intended.
llvm-svn: 174166
1. Never avoid bin packing in static initializers as this can
lead to terrible results.
2. If an element has to be broken over multiple lines, break after
the following comma.
This should be a step forward, but there are still many cases
especially with nested static initializers that we handle badly.
More patches will follow.
llvm-svn: 174061
The style guide only forbids this for function declarations. So,
now
someFunction(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaa);
Is allowed in Chromium mode.
llvm-svn: 173806
Before (in good cases):
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) {}
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa : aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaa)) {}
After:
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) {}
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaa)) {}
llvm-svn: 173684
Before we did not really systematically format those. Now, we format the
different cases as:
- 1 Line: a ? b : c;
- 2 Lines: short ? loooooooooong
: loooooooooong
- 2 Lines: loooooooooooooooong
? short : short
- 3 Lines: loooooooooooooooong
? loooooooooooooong
: loooooooooooooong
Not sure whether "?" and ":" should go on the new line, but it seems to
be the most consistent approach.
llvm-svn: 173683
1. Use a hanging ident for function calls nested in binary expressions.
E.g.:
int aaaaa = aaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaa);
2. Slightly improve heuristic for builder type expressions and reduce
penalty for breaking before "." and "->" in those.
3. Remove mostly obsolete metric of decreasing indent level. This
fixes: llvm.org/PR14931.
Changes #1 and #2 were necessary to keep tests passing after #3.
llvm-svn: 173680
These always represent a continuation and we should increase the ident.
Before:
aaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
After:
aaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
llvm-svn: 173675
This combines two small changes:
1) Put a penalty on breaking after "<"
2) Only produce a hanging indent when parameters are separated by
commas.
Before:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
aaaaaa(new Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
After:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
aaaaaa(new Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
This changes one ObjC test, but AFAICT this is not according to any
style guide (neither before nor after). We probably should be aligning
on the ":" there according to:
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/objcguide.xml?showone=Method_Invocations#Method_Invocations
llvm-svn: 173457
Otherwise, really long nested name specifiers can easily lead to a
violation of the column limit.
Not sure about the rules for indentation in those cases, so input is
appreciated (see tests.).
llvm-svn: 173438
Before:
int aaaa = aaaaa().aaaaa() // force break
.aaaaa();
After:
int aaaa = aaaaa().aaaaa() // force break
.aaaaa();
The other indent is just wrong and confusing.
llvm-svn: 173273
Before:
bool aaaa = aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
After:
bool aaaa = aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
The other indentation was a nice attempt but doesn't work in many cases.
Not sure what the right long term solution is as the "After: " is still
not nice. We either need to figure out what to do in the cases where it
"doesn't work" or come up with a third solution, e.g. falling back to:
bool aaaa =
aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
which should always work and nicely highlight the structure.
llvm-svn: 173268
Layouting would prevent breaking before + in
a[b + c] = d;
Regression detected by code review.
Also fixes an invalid-read found by the valgrind bot.
llvm-svn: 173262
