MyDeveloperDay added a comment. In D69764#2934378 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934378>, @erichkeane wrote:
> I've just been watching this from the sideline, but the cases where this > breaks code are unacceptable for this tool, it is a complete direction change > for the tool, and making that direction change silently on a review of a 15 > month patch, where TWO code owners have said 'no' for that reason is absurd. > > I use this tool daily as a part of my 'upload' script, having it silently > bust code between when I validate it and when I upload it is terrible, and > makes the tool unusable for my purposes. If we change this direction without > a full RFC, my next step is going to be an RFC to remove clang-format from > the check-in requirements of the entire LLVM project. This and other potentially other mutating options would and MUST in my view ALWAYS be 100% "off by default" for all default style options (as -fix is for clang-tidy), it would be a purely "opt in" basis. (via .clang-format or command line) I personally use this in a non modifying way "using the -dry-run mode" to catch new"east/const violations" and report failure back rather than "change the code itself" I would not expect clang-format usage to change unless someone specially opted in to using it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
