MyDeveloperDay accepted this revision. MyDeveloperDay added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thank you for fixing this, I'm sorry my review probably wasn't thorough enough in the first place, this LGTM and thank you for the very thorough description as this really helps me see. On a side rant, for me this only adds fuel to my feeling that we need D68554: [clang-format] Proposal for clang-format to give compiler style warnings <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68554> and D29039: [clang-format] Proposal for clang-format -r option <https://reviews.llvm.org/D29039> in order to be able to run new clang-format binaries over a more substantial preformatted codebase quickly and easily, prior to commit of any changes. ================ Comment at: lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:1499 + } else if (Current.isOneOf(tok::identifier, tok::kw_const, + tok::kw_noexcept) && Current.Previous && ---------------- I slightly wonder if other training annotations like `override` and `final` might also suffer simular to what we saw with {D68481} ================ Comment at: unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:7093 " template <class T>\n" - " int& foo(const std::string& str) const & noexcept {}\n" + " int& foo(const std::string& str) const&& noexcept {}\n" "};", ---------------- krasimir wrote: > note: the old test case was identical to the one above, I think the original > intent was to check both `&` and `&&` cases, so modified accordingly. nice catch Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68695/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68695 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
