On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 at 11:26 Eric Liu via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
ioeric added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651536, @amaiorano wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651489, @ioeric wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651488, @amaiorano
ioeric added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651536, @amaiorano wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651489, @ioeric wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651488, @amaiorano wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651470, @ioeric wrote:
> > >
> > > >
amaiorano added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651489, @ioeric wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651488, @amaiorano wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651470, @ioeric wrote:
> >
> > > @amaiorano: The test itself is correct. It's just that this test failed
>
You mean you build a modified version of clang-format where Style is
initialized to getGoogleStyle()?
I had wondered whether adding a -defaultStyle argument might be useful,
specifically in the case where you want to pass in yaml that simply tweaks
the default style, but I figured it's not much
ioeric added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651488, @amaiorano wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651470, @ioeric wrote:
>
> > @amaiorano: The test itself is correct. It's just that this test failed in
> > our internal test. We could've fixed it internally, but the fix
amaiorano added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943#651470, @ioeric wrote:
> @amaiorano: The test itself is correct. It's just that this test failed in
> our internal test. We could've fixed it internally, but the fix would be
> ugly. Since the intended behavior is already covered in
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL292604: [clang-format] Remove redundant test in
style-on-command-line.cpp (authored by krasimir).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28943?vs=85117=85122#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
ioeric accepted this revision.
ioeric added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
@amaiorano: The test itself is correct. It's just that this test failed in our
internal test. We could've fixed it internally, but the fix would be ugly.
Since the intended behavior is