Typz added a comment.
The patch goal is indeed to indent the content of namespace-macro blocks like
the content of any 'regular' namespace. So it should look like the content of a
namespace, possibly depending on the choose style options. To sumarize, here is
a detailed summary of the observable differences between macros vs normal
namespace.
**Without this patch**, clang-format does not understand the macro call
actually defines a namespace, thus:
- the content of the namespace-macro block is indented, even when
`Style.NamespaceIndentation = FormatStyle::NI_None`
TESTSUITE(A) {
int i; // <--- should not be indented
}
namespace B {
int j;
}
- similarly for nested namespaces, when `Style.NamespaceIndentation =
FormatStyle::NI_Inner` :
TESTSUITE(A) {
TESTSUITE(B) {
int i; // <--- should be indented 2-chars only
}
}
namespace C {
namespace D {
int j;
}
}
- There is no automatic fix of namespace end comment when
`Style.FixNamespaceComments = true`
TESTSUITE(A) {
int i;
} // <--- should have a namespace end comment
namespace B {
int j;
} // namespace B
- Multiple nested namespaces are not compacted when `Style.CompactNamespaces =
true`
TESTSUITE(A) {
TESTSUITE(B) { //<--- should be merged with previous line
int i;
}
} // <--- should be merged with previous line (and
have a "combined" namespace end comment)
namespace A { namespace B {
int j;
} // namespace A::B
---
**This patch fixes all these points**, which hopefully leads to the exact same
formatting when using the namespace keyword or the namespace-macros:
// Style.NamespaceIndentation = FormatStyle::NI_None
TESTSUITE(A) {
int i;
}
namespace B {
int j;
}
// Style.NamespaceIndentation = FormatStyle::NI_Inner
TESTSUITE(A) {
TESTSUITE(B) {
int i;
}
}
namespace C {
namespace D {
int j;
}
}
// Style.FixNamespaceComments = true
TESTSUITE(A) {
int i;
} // TESTSUITE(A)
namespace B {
int j;
} // namespace B
// Style.CompactNamespaces = true
TESTSUITE(A) { TESTSUITE(B) {
int i;
}} // TESTSUITE(A::B)
namespace A { namespace B {
int j;
}} // namespace A::B
I did not see any issue in my testing or reviewing the code, but if you see a
place in the tests where it does not match this, please point it out !
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
