HazardyKnusperkeks accepted this revision. HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D97137#2580664 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97137#2580664>, @darwin wrote: > In D97137#2579669 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97137#2579669>, > @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > >> You should mark comments as done, if they are. >> >> Does your modification maybe add something to the alignment which is not a >> declaration? >> >> int a; >> double b; >> a * b; >> >> How is that formatted? Yeah unlikely that something like that is in code, >> but it could be if `operator*` has side effects and one does not need the >> result. > > Good question. > > I've tested the original code and the modified code, both will generate the > same result: > > int a; > double b; > a* b; > > I understand the expected format should be: > > int a; > double b; > a* b; > > Maybe we can register another bug to track it. If it was formatted like that before, everything is fine by me. clang-format does not know the types (or if it are types) of `a` and `b`. > For the side effects, I couldn't answer this yet since I am no expert. Can > someone take a deep look of it? If all tests pass this is fine for me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97137/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97137 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
