HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > > Since I am by no means an expert on Clang, a few questions arose > > > > * As Clang formats the code correctly (no code changes necessary) when > > instead of `xor` a different function name e.g. `xooor` is used, I wonder > > why `xor` is tokenized as Unary operator in the first place in C? > > * Is C and C++ using the same tokenizations? > > clang-format formats all C code as C++. Since `xor` is a C++ keyword, it's > lexed as `tok::caret`, which is then erroneously annotated as > `TT_UnaryOperator`. This bug was uncovered by #90161. > > > * How to properly distinguish between the C and C++ language in Clang > > Format? > > clang-format can't do it properly. @mydeveloperday, @HazardyKnusperkeks, and > @rymiel may know more about why we didn't add `LK_C` to the > [`Language`](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#language) > option.
If I remember correctly, I was in favor of adding a C language. > Because if this code was in a .h and not a .c you wouldn't know what language > you were in There are certainly headers which are ambiguous, and we could add an option to set the language of such headers. But if we hit a `class`, `namespace`, or a `::` we could fairly certain use it as C++ header. Similar to `guessIsObjC`, and skip checking for C++ if the new option is set to C++ (which of course would be the default, to keep existing behavior). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92741 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
