[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG7972b2e42276: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums (authored by m1cha, committed by curdeius). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

MyDeveloperDay added a comment. no objection from me, we need to clean up the non landed accepted reviews or it wastes our time in the first place. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 __

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

curdeius accepted this revision. curdeius added a comment. LGTM. If nobody objects, I'll land this today. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@list

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

lunasorcery added a comment. Copying over the comment I left on D99840 explaining it - my existing change only works because it gets bailed out by further code in TokenAnnotator.cpp. I think your change still is valuable since it's more correct. > Looking at th

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha added a comment. Well it's pretty much exactly the same except for the change in `ShouldBreakBeforeBrace`. Somebody with more knowledge about clang-format than me should try to figure out why it's not needed. If it's actually not needed than this change does not need to be merged. CHANG

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D106349#2914448 , @m1cha wrote: > I don't have commit access. How does that even work? The documentation is > very scarce about this but for security reasons I'd expect there to be a very > limited set of people wi

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

lunasorcery added a comment. Note also there's significant overlap with the now-committed D99840 , though that's missing the change inside ShouldBreakBeforeBrace(). In retrospect I'm a little confused as to why D99840 appears to

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha added a comment. I don't have commit access. How does that even work? The documentation is very scarce about this but for security reasons I'd expect there to be a very limited set of people with commit access Here's my author info: `Michael Zimmermann ` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION http

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. No one objects, you can push it. Or if you don't have commit access (and don't want to, or don't want to wait for it) we can push it, then please state name and email for the commit. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha updated this revision to Diff 361493. m1cha added a comment. I've added a note to `ReleaseNotes.rst` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 Files: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp clang/

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D106349#2900770 , @m1cha wrote: > In D106349#2897400 , > @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > >> Looks good, could you also add a note in the relasenotes.rst? > > Sure > > Can I do

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha added a comment. In D106349#2897400 , @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > Looks good, could you also add a note in the relasenotes.rst? Sure Can I do something about the failing unittests? I don't know how they are related to the changes I made. CHAN

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. Looks good, could you also add a note in the relasenotes.rst? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.o

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha updated this revision to Diff 360776. m1cha edited the summary of this revision. m1cha added a comment. - rebased to `main` - fixed the test `IndentAccessModifiers` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 Files: clang/lib/Forma

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D106349#2893672 , @MyDeveloperDay wrote: > This feels like there is some overlap with D93938: [clang-format] Fixed > AfterEnum handling Yeah that may be, but it is stale for over

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

MyDeveloperDay added a comment. This feels like there is some overlap with D93938: [clang-format] Fixed AfterEnum handling Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha added a comment. I just noticed that phabricator strips the commit message so here it is: There is some similar looking code in `TokenAnnotator.cpp` but given that I've never worked on clang-format before I don't know what the purpose of that code is and how it's related to `UnwrappedLinePa

[PATCH] D106349: [clang-format] respect AfterEnum for enums

m1cha created this revision. m1cha added a reviewer: MyDeveloperDay. m1cha requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang. See the commit message for more details. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo https://reviews.llvm.org/D106349 Files: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLinePa