sstwcw added a comment. This patch fixes the regression caused by 2183fe2 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG2183fe2160fbcb754893e98829f2bff4d0fccfa3> while introducing a new regression. But in my opinion the new regression is less of a problem than the old one. Therefore I think it is okay.
Take this piece of code similar to the example in 71814b4. before void SomeFunction(int param1, template < #ifdef A #if 0 #endif MyType<Some>> #else Type1, Type2> #endif param2, param3) { f(); } after void SomeFunction(int param1, template < #ifdef A #if 0 #endif MyType<Some>> #else Type1, Type2 > #endif param2, param3) { f(); } ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:1150 } - PPChainBranchIndex.push(0); + if (!Unreachable) + PPChainBranchIndex.push(0); ---------------- Can you add a comment here saying this line is a nasty hack which breaks the assumption that `PPChainBranchIndex` should have as many entries as the number of nestings of preprocessor branches and we should probably come up with a better way? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137052/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137052 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits