klimek added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1422
+ Strict);
+ }
}
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> The problem here is that we're calling breakProtrudingToken 3 times more than
> we used to. Seems like such a waste.
> @djasper: do you think this is fine?
If we're in DryRun mode (all through the optimization phase) and we don't
actually leave around excess characters, we call this exactly once per
protruding token, so the vast majority of cases will see no change.
We'll always have an additional call in non-dry-run mode, but I think that
completely doesn't matter, and we'll have a second call if we actually do leave
around excess characters - note that this only happens when the excess
character penalty is low enough, so it won't actually affect the normal LLVM /
Google styles.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1519
if (!Token)
- return 0;
+ return {0, true};
assert(Token->getLineCount() > 0);
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> Why we return true here?
Argh, because I first had inverted the concept and changed it later - thanks
for catching, will fix.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1773
Style.PenaltyExcessCharacter;
if (NewBreakPenalty < ExcessCharactersPenalty) {
Reflow = false;
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> Shouldn't we also be messing up something here in this patch?
This just switches reflowing to false, which will keep the original line break.
This basically figures out whether we will later be able to break. That might
lead to a non-perfect solution later, as we might reflow ourselves into a
situation where we have to leave excess characters around, which we could have
avoided if we kept under the limit, but I do not think that matteres in an
observable way.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40605
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
