https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48668
Bug ID: 48668
Summary: Issues with formatting comments within switch
statements
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: Macintosh
OS: MacOS X
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Formatter
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
I ran into what I'm pretty sure is a bug in clang-format with handling comments
within switch statements. I initially discovered this with the Whitesmiths
mode, but it appears to happen in Allman mode as well. I tested it with the
following configuration:
Language: Cpp
Standard: c++17
BreakBeforeBraces: Whitesmiths
IndentCaseLabels: true
IndentCaseBlocks: false
IndentWidth: 4
TabWidth: 4
UseTab: AlignWithSpaces
I tested it with the following input (test case 1):
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
switch ( value )
{
// Comment
case 0:
break;
}
}
I would expect clang-format to take that comment and align it with the the
block and the case statement, but this is what I get:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
switch (value)
{
// Comment
case 0:
break;
}
}
As a second test, I indented the comment to where I’d expect, such as (test
case 2):
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
switch ( value )
{
// Comment
case 0:
break;
}
}
Running clang-format on this input, I get something completely different:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
switch (value)
{
// Comment
case 0:
break;
}
}
I tried to trace through the code around this a bit. Comments are complicated,
but with test case 1 it appears that Line->Level gets set to 3 during
UnwrappedLineParser::parse. This flows down to the formatter later, and it
misinterprets what the indentation should be for that line. I modified the
configuration listed above changing the BreakBeforeBraces option to Allman, but
leaving everything else the same. With that configuration it properly indents
test case 2 but not test case 1. I get the following output with that test:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
switch (value)
{
// Comment
case 0:
break;
}
}
That mirrors the output problem that I get from Whitesmiths. This seems to
indicate to me that it’s not something about the Whitesmiths setting itself,
but something deeper than that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
