owenpan added a comment. In D106112#2883301 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106112#2883301>, @curdeius wrote:
> Looks okay, but I was wondering if we don't want to guard all K&R-related > changes behind e.g. ```Standard: Cpp78``, so as not to possibly introduce > strange bugs in newer modes. > It may be an overkill if there are 2 patches like this, but if there are > more, that might become sensible to do so. > WDYT? I just reviewed the differences between K&R C (circa 1978) and ANSI/ISO C again and didn't see anything else that would impact clang-format, so a new Standard enum value for C78 is not needed. Nevertheless, we can add a boolean option e.g. C78ParameterDecl in the future if this patch causes regressions for some users. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106112/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106112 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
