MyDeveloperDay added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:2832
(!Left.is(TT_PointerOrReference) ||
- (Style.PointerAlignment != FormatStyle::PAS_Right &&
+ (getTokenPointerAlignment(Left) != FormatStyle::PAS_Right &&
!Line.IsMultiVariableDeclStmt)))
----------------
I get that this is `getReferenceOrPointAlignment(Left)`... but see below... (to
be continued)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:3332
return !Left.isOneOf(tok::amp, tok::ampamp) ||
- Style.PointerAlignment != FormatStyle::PAS_Right;
+ getTokenPointerAlignment(Left) != FormatStyle::PAS_Right;
// Space before & or && following a TT_StructuredBindingLSquare.
----------------
this is `getPointerAlignment(Left)` and... (to be continued)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:3336
Right.isOneOf(tok::amp, tok::ampamp))
- return Style.PointerAlignment != FormatStyle::PAS_Left;
+ return getTokenPointerAlignment(Right) != FormatStyle::PAS_Left;
if ((Right.is(TT_BinaryOperator) && !Left.is(tok::l_paren)) ||
----------------
and this is `getReferenceAlignment(Left)`
I get it that it was easier to change all the function to the same function
probably as a "copy and paste" of `...
Style.PointerAlginment ....`
but do you think it might be worth ensuring we differentiate between
Pointer,Reference and PointerOrReference alignment?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:920
+
+ // we don't handle this yet, so output may be arbitrary until it's
specifically handled
+ //verifyFormat("int Add2(BTree * &Root, char * szToAdd)", Style);
----------------
Nit: add FIXME
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90238/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90238
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
