Typz added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765537, @djasper wrote:
> In all honesty, I think this style isn't thought out well enough. It really
> is a special case for only "=" and "return" and even there, it has many cases
> where it simply doesn't make sense. And then you have cases like this:
>
> bool = aaaaaa //
> == bbbb //
> && ccccc;
>
>
> Where the syntactic structure is lost entirely.
bool a = aaaaaa //
== bbbb //
&& ccccc;
> On top of that it has runtime downsides for all clang-format users because
> ParenState gets larger and more costly compare. As such, I am against moving
> forward with this. Can you remind me again, which coding style suggests this
> format?
This is just a single extra bit (and there are still less than 16 such bits),
so it does change the size of ParenState. As for the compare cost, I think it
is within reach of the compiler's optimization, but it may indeed have a slight
impact.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
