Typz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33589#875039, @djasper wrote:
> I think doing the computation twice is fine. Or at least, I'd need a test > case where it actually shows substantial overhead before doing what you are > doing here. Understand that creating more States and making the State object > itself larger also has cost and that cost occurs in the combinatorial > exploration of the solution space. Doing an additional computation at the end > should be comparatively cheap. Look at it this way: During the exploration of > the solution space, we might enter breakProtrudingToken many times for the > same comment. One more time during reconstruction of the solution is not that > harmful. I 've just tried to implement this (e.g. make the 2 calls also in DryRun), and I am running into an assertion in WhitespaceManager : [ RUN ] FormatTest.ConfigurableUseOfTab FormatTests: /workspace/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Format/WhitespaceManager.cpp:112: void clang::format::WhitespaceManager::calculateLineBreakInformation(): Assertion `PreviousOriginalWhitespaceEndOffset <= OriginalWhitespaceStartOffset' failed. This remind there was another "reason" for limiting this to DryRun (not sure it is a good or bad reason): it happens only in the optimizer, all other cases where the indenter is used are not affected. I am still trying to get to the bottom of this assertion, any hint where to look for? https://reviews.llvm.org/D33589 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
