Author: mydeveloperday Date: 2020-12-26T15:19:03Z New Revision: c7dcc4c72588db9ffb7ae379983450193b943f5b
URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c7dcc4c72588db9ffb7ae379983450193b943f5b DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c7dcc4c72588db9ffb7ae379983450193b943f5b.diff LOG: [clang-format] PR48569 clang-format fails to align case label with `switch` with Whitesmith Indentation https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48569 This is a tentative fix which addresses a PR raise regarding Case indentation when working with Whitesmiths Indentation I could not find online any reference sources as to what the case indentation for Whitesmith's should be (or be allowed to be) But according to the documentation, we don't obey the rules for Whitesmith's ``` In particular, the documentation states that this option is to "indent case labels one level from the switch statement. When false, use the same indentation level as for the switch statement." ``` The behaviour we add here is actually as the TODO in the tests used to state in {D67627}, but when {D82016} was added and I brought these tests out from being TODO I realized I changed the indentation. Reviewed By: curdeius, HazardyKnusperkeks Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93806 Added: Modified: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp Removed: ################################################################################ diff --git a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp index 4c2ee421d092..99b8c28dca2b 100644 --- a/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp @@ -2244,18 +2244,26 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseLabel(bool LeftAlignLabel) { --Line->Level; if (LeftAlignLabel) Line->Level = 0; + + bool RemoveWhitesmithsCaseIndent = + (!Style.IndentCaseBlocks && + Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Whitesmiths); + + if (RemoveWhitesmithsCaseIndent) + --Line->Level; + if (!Style.IndentCaseBlocks && CommentsBeforeNextToken.empty() && FormatTok->Tok.is(tok::l_brace)) { - CompoundStatementIndenter Indenter(this, Line->Level, - Style.BraceWrapping.AfterCaseLabel, - Style.BraceWrapping.IndentBraces); + + CompoundStatementIndenter Indenter( + this, Line->Level, Style.BraceWrapping.AfterCaseLabel, + Style.BraceWrapping.IndentBraces || RemoveWhitesmithsCaseIndent); parseBlock(/*MustBeDeclaration=*/false); if (FormatTok->Tok.is(tok::kw_break)) { if (Style.BraceWrapping.AfterControlStatement == FormatStyle::BWACS_Always) { addUnwrappedLine(); - if (!Style.IndentCaseBlocks && - Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Whitesmiths) { + if (RemoveWhitesmithsCaseIndent) { Line->Level++; } } @@ -2276,6 +2284,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseLabel(bool LeftAlignLabel) { void UnwrappedLineParser::parseCaseLabel() { assert(FormatTok->Tok.is(tok::kw_case) && "'case' expected"); + // FIXME: fix handling of complex expressions here. do { nextToken(); diff --git a/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp b/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp index b6d9e67273ac..bdf4abb26c7e 100644 --- a/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp +++ b/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp @@ -13658,7 +13658,7 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, WhitesmithsBraceBreaking) { " {\n" " switch (a)\n" " {\n" - " case 2:\n" + " case 2:\n" " {\n" " }\n" " break;\n" @@ -13670,18 +13670,18 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, WhitesmithsBraceBreaking) { " {\n" " switch (a)\n" " {\n" - " case 0:\n" + " case 0:\n" " break;\n" - " case 1:\n" + " case 1:\n" " {\n" " foo();\n" " break;\n" " }\n" - " case 2:\n" + " case 2:\n" " {\n" " }\n" " break;\n" - " default:\n" + " default:\n" " break;\n" " }\n" " }\n", @@ -13691,12 +13691,12 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, WhitesmithsBraceBreaking) { " {\n" " switch (a)\n" " {\n" - " case 0:\n" + " case 0:\n" " {\n" " foo(x);\n" " }\n" " break;\n" - " default:\n" + " default:\n" " {\n" " foo(1);\n" " }\n" _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
