MyDeveloperDay added a comment. The reason I have picked this us was because of:
https://twitter.com/bruxisma/status/1462987809879257101 This slightly annoys me because : a) What they were talking about was in my view is disrespectful and inaccurate. b) I thought we'd already landed this (which we had) I went looking for this review which had previously been accepted and landed, but got reverted because it seemed to fail the tests The original author and the original-original-author has both obviously moved on a dropped it and so it didn't get fixed. I don't like wasting all that effort, especailly if we are going to get grief for it. So I rebased the review so we can land it again, (and checked both the unit tests and lit tests) I hope we don't have to go around the houses on this too much. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/Format.cpp:3274 + llvm::SmallVector<std::string, 2> FilesToLookFor; + // User provided clang-format file using -style=file:/path/to/format/file + // Check for explicit config filename ---------------- HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > MyDeveloperDay wrote: > > part of me wonders if this format should be > > > > `file://<path>` rather than `file:<path>` > > > > ```User provided clang-format file using > > -style=file:///path/to/format/file``` > > > > vs > > > > ```User provided clang-format file using -style=file:/path/to/format/file``` > > > > This would leave the way open to other protocols http:// or https:// or > > anything else. > Maybe, but I doubt we want http. And if we use `file://` a windows path > `D:\Path\` would not be valid, would it? yes file://C:\Windows\Kernel32.dll is a valid file url. but I on reflection I think `file:` will be ok. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72326/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72326 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
