steakhal wrote: > > I think we should discuss an earlier comment of mine: > > > I don't see why plist are treated differently. Through that lens, I don't > > > see the justification for this option. > > > IMO we should just always return the formatted macros for all diagnostic > > > consumers - including but not limited to the plist generator. > > > Maybe provide an escape hatch in the unforeseen case that clang-format > > > would crash on something. > > > > > > Fundamentally, the question is why should we have two separate APIs for > > getting the expanded text? One that was already used, and another for this > > new formatted text. Why don't we just expose the latter? > > There is already a fallback mechanism in the formatting part (in case the > clang-format fails on the expansion ) , so IMO it shouldn't be a problem to > replace the original API with the new one. Let me know if you guys think I > should get rid of it
Yes, I think so. WDYT @NagyDonat ? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156046 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
