[lldb-dev] clang-format now supports return type on separate line

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 21 11:34:03 PST 2016

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM Sean Callanan <scallanan at apple.com> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Zachary on the overall principle – and I would be
> willing to clang-format functions when I modify them.  I’m concerned about
> a specific class of functions, though.  Let’s say I have a function that
> has had lots of activity (I’m thinking of, for example, ParseType off in
> the DWARF parser).  Unfortunately, such functions tend to be the ones that
> benefit most from clang-format.
> In such a function, there’s a lot of useful history available via svn
> blame that helps when fixing bugs.  My concern is that if someone
> clang-formats this function after applying the *k*th fix, suddenly I've
> lost convenient access to that history.  It’s only available with a fair
> amount of pain, and this pain increases as more fixes are applied because
> now I need to interleave the info before and after reformatting.
> Would it be reasonable to mark such functions as “Don’t clang-format”?
> That could be also interpreted as a “// TODO add comments so what this does
> is more understandable”

Well again by default it's only going to format the code you touch in yoru
diff plus 1 or 2 surrounding lines.  So having it format an entire function
is something you would have to explicitly go out of your way to do.  So
it's a judgement call.  If you think the function would be better off
clang-formatting the entire thing, do that.  If you just want to format the
lines you're touching because you were in there anyway, that's the default
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160121/94849d6f/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list