jaredgrubb marked an inline comment as done.
jaredgrubb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTestObjC.cpp:1619
+ // Reflow after first macro.
+ // FIXME: these should indent but don't.
+ verifyFormat("- (id)init ATTRIBUTE_MACRO(X)\n"
----------------
owenpan wrote:
> jaredgrubb wrote:
> > I don't love this FIXME, but I was afraid to add more to this patch, as
> > fixing this will require digging into things that have nothing to do with
> > `__attribute__` vs `AttributeMacros`.
> >
> > For example, suffix macros in C/C++ also are broken in the same way with
> > just plain `__attribute__`. For example, for `ColumnWidth: 50`:
> > ```
> > int f(double) __attribute__((overloadable))
> > __attribute__((overloadable));
> >
> > int ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff(double)
> > __attribute__((overloadable))
> > __attribute__((overloadable));
> > ```
> >
> > I think fixing reflowing of suffix macros is best done in another PR (which
> > I can take a stab at!)
> Half of the test cases passed before this patch but now would fail with this
> patch. That is, this patch would generate regressions.
Just saw this comment. Yes, 3 of these did pass, but lots more in this file do
NOT pass. I understand the desire to not "regress", but this patch improves so
many other examples (as documented in these test cases). I can pick some of the
worst if it helps, but otherwise, I'm not sure what I can do to address your
comment.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145262/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145262
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
