Abpostelnicu added a comment.
In D78879#2004724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78879#2004724>, @MyDeveloperDay
wrote:
> @sylvestre.ledru
>
> I'm taking a quick look at formatting the original bug in gecko and whilst
> the last windows snapshot (Feb 2020) shows the bug
>
> $ clang-format --version
> clang-format version 11.0.0
>
> nsTArray.h:939:29: warning: code should be clang-formatted
> [-Wclang-format-violations]
> operator const nsTArray<E>&() {
> ^
> nsTArray.h:946:35: warning: code should be clang-formatted
> [-Wclang-format-violations]
> operator const FallibleTArray<E>&() {
> ^
> nsTArray.h:1147:59: warning: code should be clang-formatted
> [-Wclang-format-violations]
> [[nodiscard]] operator const nsTArray_Impl<E, Allocator>&() const& {
> ^
> nsTArray.h:1151:43: warning: code should be clang-formatted
> [-Wclang-format-violations]
> [[nodiscard]] operator const nsTArray<E>&() const& {
> ^
> nsTArray.h:1154:49: warning: code should be clang-formatted
> [-Wclang-format-violations]
> [[nodiscard]] operator const FallibleTArray<E>&() const& {
>
>
> The current trunk does not
>
> $ clang-format --version
> clang-format version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> 1956a8a7cb79e94dbe073e36eba2d6b003f91046)
>
> clang-format -n nsTArray.h
>
>
> Is Mozilla toolchain using LLVM from the v10 branch?
>
> I think this is fixed by D76850: clang-format: Fix pointer alignment for
> overloaded operators (PR45107) <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76850>
Yes, we are using the clang tooling 10.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78879/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78879
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
