Removing the penalty for breaking after "=".
Having seen more cases, this actually was not a good thing to do in the first place. We can still improve on what we do now, but breaking after the "=" is good in many cases. Before: aaaaaaaaaaaaa = aa->aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa( aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaa)); After: aaaaaaaaaaaaa = aa->aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaa)); llvm-svn: 173257
This commit is contained in:
parent
5b49f47835
commit
43b6548ce0
|
@ -702,11 +702,6 @@ private:
|
||||||
return prec::Assignment;
|
return prec::Assignment;
|
||||||
prec::Level Level = getPrecedence(Left);
|
prec::Level Level = getPrecedence(Left);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
// Breaking after an assignment leads to a bad result as the two sides of
|
|
||||||
// the assignment are visually very close together.
|
|
||||||
if (Level == prec::Assignment)
|
|
||||||
return 50;
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if (Level != prec::Unknown)
|
if (Level != prec::Unknown)
|
||||||
return Level;
|
return Level;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -1030,15 +1030,15 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, BreaksAccordingToOperatorPrecedence) {
|
||||||
" ccccccccccccccccccccccccc) {\n}");
|
" ccccccccccccccccccccccccc) {\n}");
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
TEST_F(FormatTest, PrefersNotToBreakAfterAssignments) {
|
TEST_F(FormatTest, BreaksAfterAssignments) {
|
||||||
verifyFormat(
|
verifyFormat(
|
||||||
"unsigned Cost = TTI.getMemoryOpCost(I->getOpcode(), VectorTy,\n"
|
"unsigned Cost =\n"
|
||||||
" SI->getAlignment(),\n"
|
" TTI.getMemoryOpCost(I->getOpcode(), VectorTy, SI->getAlignment(),\n"
|
||||||
" SI->getPointerAddressSpaceee());\n");
|
" SI->getPointerAddressSpaceee());\n");
|
||||||
verifyFormat(
|
verifyFormat(
|
||||||
"CharSourceRange LineRange = CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(\n"
|
"CharSourceRange LineRange =\n"
|
||||||
" Line.Tokens.front().Tok.getLocation(),\n"
|
" CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(Line.Tokens.front().Tok.getLoc(),\n"
|
||||||
" Line.Tokens.back().Tok.getLocation());");
|
" Line.Tokens.back().Tok.getLoc());");
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
TEST_F(FormatTest, AlignsAfterAssignments) {
|
TEST_F(FormatTest, AlignsAfterAssignments) {
|
||||||
|
@ -1055,9 +1055,9 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, AlignsAfterAssignments) {
|
||||||
"int Result = (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +\n"
|
"int Result = (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +\n"
|
||||||
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);");
|
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);");
|
||||||
verifyFormat(
|
verifyFormat(
|
||||||
"double LooooooooooooooooooooooooongResult = aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +\n"
|
"double LooooooooooooooooooooooooongResult =\n"
|
||||||
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +\n"
|
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa + aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +\n"
|
||||||
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa;");
|
" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa;");
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
TEST_F(FormatTest, AlignsAfterReturn) {
|
TEST_F(FormatTest, AlignsAfterReturn) {
|
||||||
|
@ -1133,9 +1133,8 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, UnderstandsEquals) {
|
||||||
"}");
|
"}");
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
verifyFormat(
|
verifyFormat(
|
||||||
// FIXME: Does an expression like this ever make sense? If yes, fix.
|
"if (int aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa =\n"
|
||||||
"if (int aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 100000000 +\n"
|
" 100000000 + 10000000) {\n}");
|
||||||
" 10000000) {\n}");
|
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
TEST_F(FormatTest, WrapsAtFunctionCallsIfNecessary) {
|
TEST_F(FormatTest, WrapsAtFunctionCallsIfNecessary) {
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue