Typz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33589#925903, @klimek wrote:
> I think this patch doesn't handle a couple of cases that I'd like to see > handled. A counter-proposal with different trade-offs is in > https://reviews.llvm.org/D40068. It may be simpler (though not to my eyes, I am not knowledgeable enough to really understand how you go this fixed...), and works fine for "almost correct" comments: e.g. when there are indeed just a few extra characters overall. But it still procudes strange result when each line of the (long) comment is too long, but not enough to trigger a line-wrap by itself. Since that version has landed already, not sure how to improve on this. I could probably rewrite my patch on master, but it seems a bit redundant. As a simpler fix, I could imagine adding a "total" overflow counter, to allow detecting the situation; but when this is detected (e.g. on subsequent lines) we would need to "backtrack" and revisit the initial decision... https://reviews.llvm.org/D33589 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
