kuzkry added a comment.
Thanks @JakeMerdichAMD for your quick feedback.
> In any case, can you also add the full diff context? It makes it easier for
> us to review.
I'll do that starting from the next patch because I'm afraid if I resubmit the
longer version of the same patch, your comment would be hidden or considered
obsolete as it would refer to an older revision.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixerTest.cpp:426-428
+ EXPECT_EQ("namespace A { a }// namespace A",
+ fixNamespaceEndComments("namespace A { a }"));
+ EXPECT_EQ("namespace A { a };// namespace A",
----------------
JakeMerdichAMD wrote:
> I strongly believe that these ones are not correct. Namespaces that are
> entirely on one line should never have a trailing comment, even if it has
> content in it.
>
> A solution would also have to take into account whether future passes would
> split this onto separate lines (and thus have a different result after
> re-running clang-format), which was the reason for this limitation in the
> first place.
You're absolutely right. Btw. do you happen to know which style option controls
this behaviour that splits these namespaces onto separate lines?
Anyway, I'm going to look into this in a few days.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87587/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87587
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
