https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38403
Bug ID: 38403
Summary: Macros on access specifiers not formatted correctly
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: Formatter
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: steve...@gmail.com
CC: djas...@google.com, kli...@google.com,
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Given this input:
#define Q_SLOTS
#define MY_ATTR
class Foo {
public:
float b() { return b; }
private Q_SLOTS:
int a_ = 0;
float b_ = 0;
};
class Foo {
public:
float b() { return b; }
private MY_ATTR:
int a_ = 0;
float b_ = 0;
};
clang format produces this result:
C:\dev\src\playground\cpp>C:\dev\src\llvm\build\releaseprefix\bin\clang-format.exe
cftest.cpp
#define Q_SLOTS
#define MY_ATTR
class Foo {
public:
float b() { return b; }
private Q_SLOTS:
int a_ = 0;
float b_ = 0;
};
class Foo {
public:
float b() { return b; }
private
MY_ATTR :
int a_ = 0;
float b_ = 0;
};
That is - the MY_ATTR macro breaks subsequent formatting.
I notice
void UnwrappedLineParser::parseAccessSpecifier() {
nextToken();
// Understand Qt's slots.
if (FormatTok->isOneOf(Keywords.kw_slots, Keywords.kw_qslots))
nextToken();
// Otherwise, we don't know what it is, and we'd better keep the next token.
if (FormatTok->Tok.is(tok::colon))
nextToken();
addUnwrappedLine();
}
so it seems Qt is handled as a special case? I assume there is some reason for
that instead of a generic solution. I'm not familiar enough with clang-format
internals to know.
Can the list of accepted tokens in access specifiers be extended as a user
customization point?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
