Wow, that’s a super handy feature and probably goes a long way toward alleviating concerns about tables. I have to say, I always feel good vibes about a source base when they have lint directives in comments. Shows they run lint as a matter of course.
Sean > On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Apparently, you can also disable the formatting of a piece of code by > a magic comment. Could be quite useful for those tables. From the > docs: > ----- > Clang-format understands also special comments that switch formatting > in a delimited range. The code between a comment // clang-format off > or /* clang-format off */ up to a comment // clang-format on or /* > clang-format on */ will not be formatted. The comments themselves will > be formatted (aligned) normally. > ----- > > > On 22 January 2016 at 17:09, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Okay, thanks for the tip! >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> By the way, one place where you are guaranteed to get undesirable results >>> is where you have a large array formatted so that the columns line up. Like >>> in our options tables in the CommandObjects. If you're using git, one way >>> to avoid having clang-format touch these files is to commit that file by >>> itself, then run git clang-format (since it only looks at staged files), >>> then git commit --amend. But of course that will gloss over any other >>> changes you made to the file as well. But in any case, it's another trick >>> I've found useful occasionally. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:09 AM Kate Stone <katherine_st...@apple.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Agreed. My guidance has been that we go ahead and require submitters to >>>> use clang-format for patches, but to acknowledge that there may be cases >>>> where this produces undesirable results. Manual formatting to correct >>>> these >>>> issues is acceptable and should lead to discussions about concrete examples >>>> where the automated approach is imperfect. >>>> >>>> Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com >>>> Xcode Runtime Analysis Tools >>>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Todd Fiala via lldb-dev >>>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Okay, sounds like a reasonable thing to try. We can always review it if >>>> it causes any real issues. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I tend to agree with Zachary on the overall principle – and I would be >>>>>> willing to clang-format functions when I modify them. I’m concerned >>>>>> about a >>>>>> specific class of functions, though. Let’s say I have a function that >>>>>> has >>>>>> had lots of activity (I’m thinking of, for example, ParseType off in the >>>>>> DWARF parser). Unfortunately, such functions tend to be the ones that >>>>>> benefit most from clang-format. >>>>>> >>>>>> In such a function, there’s a lot of useful history available via svn >>>>>> blame that helps when fixing bugs. My concern is that if someone >>>>>> clang-formats this function after applying the kth fix, suddenly I've >>>>>> lost >>>>>> convenient access to that history. It’s only available with a fair >>>>>> amount >>>>>> of pain, and this pain increases as more fixes are applied because now I >>>>>> need to interleave the info before and after reformatting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be reasonable to mark such functions as “Don’t clang-format”? >>>>>> That could be also interpreted as a “// TODO add comments so what this >>>>>> does >>>>>> is more understandable” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well again by default it's only going to format the code you touch in >>>>> yoru diff plus 1 or 2 surrounding lines. So having it format an entire >>>>> function is something you would have to explicitly go out of your way to >>>>> do. >>>>> So it's a judgement call. If you think the function would be better off >>>>> clang-formatting the entire thing, do that. If you just want to format >>>>> the >>>>> lines you're touching because you were in there anyway, that's the default >>>>> behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -Todd >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> lldb-dev mailing list >>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Todd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
