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

Pavel Labath via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jan 22 12:29:13 PST 2016

Apparently, you can also disable the formatting of a piece of code by
a magic comment. Could be quite useful for those tables. From the
Clang-format understands also special comments that switch formatting
in a delimited range. The code between a comment // clang-format off
or /* clang-format off */ up to a comment // clang-format on or /*
clang-format on */ will not be formatted. The comments themselves will
be formatted (aligned) normally.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:09, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev
<lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Okay, thanks for the tip!
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> By the way, one place where you are guaranteed to get undesirable results
>> is where you have a large array formatted so that the columns line up.  Like
>> in our options tables in the CommandObjects.  If you're using git, one way
>> to avoid having clang-format touch these files is to commit that file by
>> itself, then run git clang-format (since it only looks at staged files),
>> then git commit --amend.  But of course that will gloss over any other
>> changes you made to the file as well.  But in any case, it's another trick
>> I've found useful occasionally.
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:09 AM Kate Stone <katherine_stone at apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Agreed.  My guidance has been that we go ahead and require submitters to
>>> use clang-format for patches, but to acknowledge that there may be cases
>>> where this produces undesirable results.  Manual formatting to correct these
>>> issues is acceptable and should lead to discussions about concrete examples
>>> where the automated approach is imperfect.
>>> Kate Stone k8stone at apple.com
>>>  Xcode Runtime Analysis Tools
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev
>>> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Okay, sounds like a reasonable thing to try.  We can always review it if
>>> it causes any real issues.
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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 kth 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
>>>> behavior.
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> --
> -Todd
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list