Quuxplusone added a comment.
FWIW, looks unobjectionable to me, except for some nitpicks on the test cases
(which are easy to fix so I'm hoping you just will :)).
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:13780
+ // In C++2a, it is interpreted as a prefix increment on 'i'.
+ verifyFormat("co_yield++ i;");
+ verifyFormat("co_yield ++i;", Cpp2a);
----------------
My comment https://reviews.llvm.org/D65043#inline-582865 still stands. Please
just write
verifyFormat("f(co_yield - 1);");
verifyFormat("f(co_yield -1);", Cpp2a);
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:13783
+
+ verifyFormat("co_await []() { co_return; }();", Cpp2a);
+}
----------------
FWIW, `[]() { co_return; }` is not valid C++2a either. You can't have a lambda
that is a coroutine and //also// has a deduced return type. Make this
verifyFormat("co_await []() -> g { co_return; }();", Cpp2a);
if you want it to be plausible C++2a.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65043/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65043
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
