HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst:3233 + + ``QualifierAlignment`` COULD lead to incorrect code generation. + ---------------- simon.giesecke wrote: > This is pretty unclear, for a number of reasons: > * First, this probably only refers to a setting other than `QAS_Leave`? > * Second, "lead to incorrect code generation" seems to skip a step. In the > first place, this seems to imply that a setting other than `QAS_Leave` might > change the semantics of the source code. > * Third, it's not clear to me when this would happen, and how likely that is. > Does this mean "Non-default settings are experimental, and you shouldn't use > this in production?" or rather "Under rare circumstances that are unlikely to > happen in real code, a non-default setting might change semantics." At the > minimum, could this give some example(s) when this happens? * Yes. * Yes, it might change the semantics, that was the content of a huge discussion here in the review and on the mailing list. Consensus was found that non whitespace changes are acceptable with a big warning and off by default. * The latter, if we would have an example at hand in which cases it wouldn't work, we would fix that and not give it as an example. So to the best of our knowledge it does not break anything. The warning text however might be improved. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
