psigillito added a comment.
In D117416#3246838 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117416#3246838>, @curdeius wrote:
> Thanks for having a try on this.
> However, I don't like this approach too much. You add many changes and a
> single test. That's not sufficient.
> Also, handling C++ keywords in all cases (e.g. `delete` as a function name)
> *may* need to distinguish whether we format a C file or a C++ file. It's
> probably impossible to do this without user input (.h extension is used in
> both languages for example).
> We'd maybe need to add C as language option and let the user specify the
> language (`-x c`?).
> That in turn may be painful (because not automatic).
> But, you may have a better solution.
> My 2 cents.
Thanks, I am just starting to understand some of the code base so my changes
should be taken with a grain of salt. The more I think about this, I do not
think my change is correct. As you pointed out with the 'delete' keyword, my
changes would not correctly handle a struct named 'delete' i.e.
struct delete foo = {0};
delete.val;
I think adding a cmd line argument specifying you are using C code is more
correct. If the user does not specify they are using C, clang-format would
format the code as it does now.
The only thing I don't like about this is that it might be kind of clumsy to
only be able to specify your language is C. I can take a stab at implementing
this if this is the route we want to go.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117416/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117416
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
