* Re: [PATCH v4] Add .clang-format
2025-10-06 18:38 [PATCH v4] Add .clang-format Tom Tromey
2025-10-06 18:42 ` Tom Tromey
2025-10-06 18:46 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2025-10-11 22:49 ` Kevin Buettner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2025-10-11 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:38:59 -0600
Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> wrote:
> This patch adds a .clang-format file to the gdb repository.
>
> The resulting reformatting is what I'd describe as "ok but not great".
> There are a few variances from our normal style, some discussed in
> comments in the file, and some in the bug.
>
> I've somewhat come around to the idea that some ugliness is
> acceptable, particularly because I regularly see code that's already
> ugly anyway -- either in formatting or along some other dimension.
>
> I don't know of a way to enforce a particular version. I have only
> tried clang-format 18 with this particular file. I've documented this
> in the file.
>
> I used "AllowShortFunctionsOnASingleLine: InlineOnly" as previously
> discussed. I feel that the spirit of the GNU style is that vertical
> space is free, and we should use "None" here. (This goes against
> something we previously decided on the list, though.)
>
> The file is in the root directory for ease of use.
>
> For the time being you should not bulk reformat files. I think we
> should have a flag day for this, but at some later point. See the
> earlier discussion for details.
>
> New in v4:
> * Fix a comment
> * Remove ForEachMacros - no longer correct
> * Remove IncludeCategories - no longer correct
>
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30098
> ---
> .clang-format | 174 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> .gitignore | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 .clang-format
I spent some time playing around with this.
I formatted gdb/dwarf2/read.c, which is one of the biggest GDB source
files.
I tried four versions of clang-format, versions 18, 19, 20, and 21.
This is the diff between v18 and v19:
--- read.c.v18 2025-10-10 20:55:13.151282243 -0700
+++ read.c.v19 2025-10-10 20:56:02.673050802 -0700
@@ -392,9 +392,7 @@
/* The sections that make up this DWO file.
Remember that for virtual DWO files in DWP V2 or DWP V5, these are
virtual sections (for lack of a better name). */
- struct dwo_sections sections
- {
- };
+ struct dwo_sections sections {};
/* The CUs in the file.
@@ -601,9 +599,7 @@
gdb_bfd_ref_ptr dbfd;
/* Section info for this file. */
- struct dwp_sections sections
- {
- };
+ struct dwp_sections sections {};
/* Table of CUs in the file. */
const struct dwp_hash_table *cus = nullptr;
@@ -679,9 +675,7 @@
reference. We track the section offset of each field to make
this link. */
sect_offset offset;
- struct field field
- {
- };
+ struct field field {};
};
struct fnfieldlist
@@ -7236,9 +7230,7 @@
: dwp_file->cus;
bfd *dbfd = dwp_file->dbfd.get ();
const char *kind = is_debug_types ? "TU" : "CU";
- struct virtual_v2_or_v5_dwo_sections sections
- {
- };
+ struct virtual_v2_or_v5_dwo_sections sections {};
gdb_assert (dwp_file->version == 5);
There were no differences between v19 and v20.
--- read.c.v20 2025-10-10 20:58:13.960085581 -0700
+++ read.c.v21 2025-10-10 20:58:50.203646704 -0700
@@ -2489,9 +2489,8 @@
/* Preserve the ordering of per_bfd->all_units. */
auto insert_it = std::lower_bound (
per_bfd->all_units.begin (), per_bfd->all_units.end (), sig_type,
- [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &lhs, const signatured_type *rhs) {
- return all_units_less_than (*lhs, { rhs->section, rhs->sect_off });
- });
+ [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &lhs, const signatured_type *rhs)
+ { return all_units_less_than (*lhs, { rhs->section, rhs->sect_off
}); });
per_bfd->all_units.emplace (insert_it, sig_type_holder.release ());
auto emplace_ret = per_bfd->signatured_types.emplace (sig_type);
@@ -2723,11 +2722,12 @@
int next_attr_idx = 0;
/* Push an element into ATTRIBUTES. */
- auto push_back = [&] (struct attribute *attr) {
- gdb_assert (next_attr_idx < ARRAY_SIZE (attributes));
- if (attr != nullptr)
- attributes[next_attr_idx++] = attr;
- };
+ auto push_back = [&] (struct attribute *attr)
+ {
+ gdb_assert (next_attr_idx < ARRAY_SIZE (attributes));
+ if (attr != nullptr)
+ attributes[next_attr_idx++] = attr;
+ };
if (stub_comp_unit_die != NULL)
{
@@ -3313,10 +3313,12 @@
private:
void process_one (dwarf2_per_cu &unit)
{
- m_thread_storage.catch_error ([&] () {
- m_parent->process_unit (&unit, m_parent->m_per_objfile,
- &m_thread_storage);
- });
+ m_thread_storage.catch_error (
+ [&] ()
+ {
+ m_parent->process_unit (&unit, m_parent->m_per_objfile,
+ &m_thread_storage);
+ });
}
/* Measures the execution time of this worker. */
@@ -3546,9 +3548,8 @@
cutu_reader reader (*tu.sig_type, *per_objfile, abbrev_table.get (),
nullptr, false, language_minimal);
if (!reader.is_dummy ())
- storage->catch_error ([&] () {
- process_type_unit (&reader, storage);
- });
+ storage->catch_error ([&] ()
+ { process_type_unit (&reader, storage); });
}
}
@@ -3590,9 +3591,12 @@
if (per_objfile->per_bfd->dwp_file == nullptr)
for (const dwo_file_up &file : per_objfile->per_bfd->dwo_files)
for (const dwo_unit_up &unit : file->tus)
- storage->catch_error ([&] () {
- process_skeletonless_type_unit (unit.get (), per_objfile,
storage);
- });
+ storage->catch_error (
+ [&] ()
+ {
+ process_skeletonless_type_unit (unit.get (), per_objfile,
+ storage);
+ });
}
void
@@ -3702,9 +3706,10 @@
/* Ensure that the all_units vector is in the expected order for
dwarf2_find_containing_unit to be able to perform a binary search. */
std::sort (per_bfd->all_units.begin (), per_bfd->all_units.end (),
- [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &a, const dwarf2_per_cu_up &b) {
- return all_units_less_than (*a, { b->section, b->sect_off
});
- });
+ [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &a, const dwarf2_per_cu_up &b)
+ {
+ return all_units_less_than (*a, { b->section, b->sect_off
});
+ });
}
/* See read.h. */
@@ -9386,32 +9391,33 @@
retval = dwarf2_ranges_process (
offset, cu, tag,
- [&] (unrelocated_addr range_beginning, unrelocated_addr range_end) {
- if (map != nullptr)
- {
- /* addrmap only accepts CORE_ADDR, so we must cast here. */
- map->set_empty ((CORE_ADDR) range_beginning,
- (CORE_ADDR) range_end - 1, datum);
- }
+ [&] (unrelocated_addr range_beginning, unrelocated_addr range_end)
+ {
+ if (map != nullptr)
+ {
+ /* addrmap only accepts CORE_ADDR, so we must cast here. */
+ map->set_empty ((CORE_ADDR) range_beginning,
+ (CORE_ADDR) range_end - 1, datum);
+ }
- /* FIXME: This is recording everything as a low-high
+ /* FIXME: This is recording everything as a low-high
segment of consecutive addresses. We should have a
data structure for discontiguous block ranges
instead. */
- if (!low_set)
- {
- low = range_beginning;
- high = range_end;
- low_set = 1;
- }
- else
- {
- if (range_beginning < low)
+ if (!low_set)
+ {
low = range_beginning;
- if (range_end > high)
high = range_end;
- }
- });
+ low_set = 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ if (range_beginning < low)
+ low = range_beginning;
+ if (range_end > high)
+ high = range_end;
+ }
+ });
if (!retval)
return 0;
@@ -9435,9 +9441,8 @@
std::vector<unrelocated_addr> &result)
{
dwarf2_ranges_process (offset, cu, tag,
- [&] (unrelocated_addr start, unrelocated_addr
end) {
- result.push_back (start);
- });
+ [&] (unrelocated_addr start, unrelocated_addr end)
+ { result.push_back (start); });
}
/* Determine the low and high pc of a DW_TAG_entry_point. */
@@ -9874,13 +9879,14 @@
std::vector<blockrange> blockvec;
dwarf2_ranges_process (
ranges_offset, cu, die->tag,
- [&] (unrelocated_addr start, unrelocated_addr end) {
- CORE_ADDR abs_start = per_objfile->relocate (start);
- CORE_ADDR abs_end = per_objfile->relocate (end);
- cu->get_builder ()->record_block_range (block, abs_start,
- abs_end - 1);
- blockvec.emplace_back (abs_start, abs_end);
- });
+ [&] (unrelocated_addr start, unrelocated_addr end)
+ {
+ CORE_ADDR abs_start = per_objfile->relocate (start);
+ CORE_ADDR abs_end = per_objfile->relocate (end);
+ cu->get_builder ()->record_block_range (block, abs_start,
+ abs_end - 1);
+ blockvec.emplace_back (abs_start, abs_end);
+ });
block->set_ranges (make_blockranges (objfile, blockvec));
}
@@ -18425,9 +18431,10 @@
{
auto it = std::lower_bound (all_units.begin (), all_units.end (), target,
[] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &per_cu,
- const section_and_offset &key) {
- return all_units_less_than (*per_cu, key);
- });
+ const section_and_offset &key)
+ {
+ return all_units_less_than (*per_cu,
key);
+ });
if (it == all_units.begin ())
{
@@ -18466,11 +18473,12 @@
dwarf2_per_bfd *per_bfd = per_objfile->per_bfd;
dwarf2_per_cu *per_cu = dwarf2_find_containing_unit (target,
per_bfd->all_units);
- auto error_out = [&target, per_bfd] () {
- error (_ (DWARF_ERROR_PREFIX
- "could not find unit containing offset %s [in module %s]"),
- sect_offset_str (target.offset), per_bfd->filename ());
- };
+ auto error_out = [&target, per_bfd] ()
+ {
+ error (_ (DWARF_ERROR_PREFIX
+ "could not find unit containing offset %s [in module %s]"),
+ sect_offset_str (target.offset), per_bfd->filename ());
+ };
if (per_cu == nullptr)
error_out ();
@@ -18500,12 +18508,10 @@
dwarf2_per_cu *
dwarf2_find_unit (const section_and_offset &start, dwarf2_per_bfd *per_bfd)
{
- auto it = std::lower_bound (per_bfd->all_units.begin (),
- per_bfd->all_units.end (), start,
- [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &per_cu,
- const section_and_offset &key) {
- return all_units_less_than (*per_cu, key);
- });
+ auto it = std::lower_bound (
+ per_bfd->all_units.begin (), per_bfd->all_units.end (), start,
+ [] (const dwarf2_per_cu_up &per_cu, const section_and_offset &key)
+ { return all_units_less_than (*per_cu, key); });
if (it == per_bfd->all_units.end ())
return nullptr;
@@ -18537,13 +18543,14 @@
reference. */
auto create_dummy_per_unit = [&] (dwarf2_section_info §ion,
unsigned int sect_off,
- bool is_dwz) -> dwarf2_per_cu & {
- /* Omit the length, because dwarf2_find_containing_unit does not
consider
+ bool is_dwz) -> dwarf2_per_cu &
+ {
+ /* Omit the length, because dwarf2_find_containing_unit does not
consider it. */
- return *units.emplace_back (new dwarf2_per_cu (dummy_per_bfd, §ion,
- sect_offset (sect_off),
0,
- is_dwz));
- };
+ return *units.emplace_back (new dwarf2_per_cu (dummy_per_bfd,
§ion,
+ sect_offset
(sect_off), 0,
+ is_dwz));
+ };
/* Create 2 units in the main file and 2 units in the supplementary (dwz)
file. */
@@ -18556,15 +18563,16 @@
section SECTION finds EXPECTED. */
auto check_range = [&units] (dwarf2_section_info §ion,
unsigned int start, unsigned int end,
- dwarf2_per_cu *expected) {
- for (unsigned int sect_off = start; sect_off < end; ++sect_off)
- {
- section_and_offset target { §ion, sect_offset (sect_off) };
- dwarf2_per_cu *result = dwarf2_find_containing_unit (target,
units);
+ dwarf2_per_cu *expected)
+ {
+ for (unsigned int sect_off = start; sect_off < end; ++sect_off)
+ {
+ section_and_offset target { §ion, sect_offset (sect_off) };
+ dwarf2_per_cu *result = dwarf2_find_containing_unit (target,
units);
- SELF_CHECK (result == expected);
- }
- };
+ SELF_CHECK (result == expected);
+ }
+ };
check_range (main_section, 0, 10, nullptr);
check_range (main_section, 10, 20, &main1);
=========================================================
Just skimming those (above), I mostly like the v21 formatting better.
Next, I made a diff between the original source and the v18 formatted
version. Below, I'll point out the odd things that I saw:
@@ -181,29 +181,27 @@
/* Note that if the debugging section has been compressed, it might
have a name like .zdebug_info. */
-const struct dwarf2_debug_sections dwarf2_elf_names =
-{
- { ".debug_info", ".zdebug_info" },
...
+const struct dwarf2_debug_sections dwarf2_elf_names
+ = { { ".debug_info", ".zdebug_info" },
...
I do not like the double left curly braces on the same line.
There are a bunch of changes like this one:
@@ -441,7 +448,9 @@
bool
dwo_file_eq::operator() (const dwo_file_up &a,
const dwo_file_up &b) const noexcept
-{ return (*this) ({ a->dwo_name.c_str (), a->comp_dir }, b); }
+{
+ return (*this) ({ a->dwo_name.c_str (), a->comp_dir }, b);
+}
/* These sections are what may appear in a DWP file. */
This change is fine with me - I like it better.
Here's another change that I like better. clang-format has placed the
backslashes all in the same column...
@@ -542,12 +551,12 @@
{
/* This is indexed by column number and gives the id of the section
in that column. */
-#define MAX_NR_V2_DWO_SECTIONS \
- (1 /* .debug_info or .debug_types */ \
- + 1 /* .debug_abbrev */ \
- + 1 /* .debug_line */ \
- + 1 /* .debug_loc */ \
- + 1 /* .debug_str_offsets */ \
+#define MAX_NR_V2_DWO_SECTIONS \
+ (1 /* .debug_info or .debug_types */ \
+ + 1 /* .debug_abbrev */ \
+ + 1 /* .debug_line */ \
+ + 1 /* .debug_loc */ \
+ + 1 /* .debug_str_offsets */ \
+ 1 /* .debug_macro or .debug_macinfo */)
int section_ids[MAX_NR_V2_DWO_SECTIONS];
const gdb_byte *offsets;
(There's more than one change which makes that same kind of adjustment
where the backslash continuation character are lined up in the same
column.)
Here's one where I prefer the original formatting:
@@ -592,7 +601,9 @@
gdb_bfd_ref_ptr dbfd;
/* Section info for this file. */
- struct dwp_sections sections {};
+ struct dwp_sections sections
+ {
+ };
/* Table of CUs in the file. */
const struct dwp_hash_table *cus = nullptr;
There's two things going on in this one:
struct fnfieldlist
@@ -723,8 +736,9 @@
show_dwarf_max_cache_age (struct ui_file *file, int from_tty,
struct cmd_list_element *c, const char *value)
{
- gdb_printf (file, _("The upper bound on the age of cached "
- "DWARF compilation units is %s.\n"),
+ gdb_printf (file,
+ _ ("The upper bound on the age of cached "
+ "DWARF compilation units is %s.\n"),
value);
}
First, the string has been moved to a line of its own, which I think is
okay.
Second, it puts a space between the _ and the left paren, which I don't
especially like. Technically, it's the right thing to do, but I'm
accustomed to see it formatted as '_(...'.
There's a bunch of changes like this one - I'm okay with it:
@@ -754,9 +767,9 @@
static sect_offset read_abbrev_offset (dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
dwarf2_section_info *, sect_offset);
-static const char *read_indirect_string (dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
bfd *,
- const gdb_byte *, const unit_head
*,
- unsigned int *);
+static const char *read_indirect_string (dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
+ bfd *, const gdb_byte *,
+ const unit_head *, unsigned int
*);
static unrelocated_addr read_addr_index_from_leb128 (struct dwarf2_cu *,
const gdb_byte *,
For this one, I slightly prefer the clang-format version:
@@ -1804,7 +1803,7 @@
/* We may have already read in this line header (TU line header
sharing). If we have we're done. */
- stmt_list_hash_key = {cu->dwo_unit, line_offset};
+ stmt_list_hash_key = { cu->dwo_unit, line_offset };
if (auto it = per_bfd->quick_file_names_table.find
(*stmt_list_hash_key); it != per_bfd->quick_file_names_table.end ())
I definitely prefer the clang-format version for this one:
@@ -1867,7 +1866,7 @@
dw2_get_file_names (dwarf2_per_cu *this_cu, dwarf2_per_objfile
*per_objfile) {
/* This should never be called for TUs. */
- gdb_assert (! this_cu->is_debug_types);
+ gdb_assert (!this_cu->is_debug_types);
if (this_cu->files_read)
return this_cu->file_names;
I like the original better for this one:
@@ -1944,8 +1944,8 @@
}
void
-dwarf2_base_index_functions::forget_cached_source_info
- (struct objfile *objfile)
+dwarf2_base_index_functions::forget_cached_source_info (
+ struct objfile *objfile)
{
dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile = get_dwarf2_per_objfile (objfile);
I think the clang-format version makes more sense here too:
@@ -2032,10 +2029,9 @@
based on FILE_MATCHER. */
static void
-dw_search_file_matcher
- (dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
- auto_bool_vector &cus_to_skip,
- search_symtabs_file_matcher file_matcher)
+dw_search_file_matcher (dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
+ auto_bool_vector &cus_to_skip,
+ search_symtabs_file_matcher file_matcher)
{
if (file_matcher == NULL)
return;
For this one, I find the original to be more readable:
@@ -2153,12 +2147,9 @@
}
struct compunit_symtab *
-dwarf2_base_index_functions::find_pc_sect_compunit_symtab
- (struct objfile *objfile,
- bound_minimal_symbol msymbol,
- CORE_ADDR pc,
- struct obj_section *section,
- int warn_if_readin)
+dwarf2_base_index_functions::find_pc_sect_compunit_symtab (
+ struct objfile *objfile, bound_minimal_symbol msymbol, CORE_ADDR pc,
+ struct obj_section *section, int warn_if_readin)
{
struct compunit_symtab *result;
The GCC C++ conventions specify that spaces should be placed outside
of the angle brackets - therefore the original complies with that
convention and the clang-format version does not.
@@ -2291,7 +2280,7 @@
/* Get the content of the .gdb_index section of OBJ. SECTION_OWNER should
point to either a dwarf2_per_bfd or dwz_file object. */
-template <typename T>
+template<typename T>
static gdb::array_view<const gdb_byte>
get_gdb_index_contents_from_section (objfile *obj, T *section_owner)
{
I like the original formatting better for this lambda:
@@ -2743,12 +2729,11 @@
int next_attr_idx = 0;
/* Push an element into ATTRIBUTES. */
- auto push_back = [&] (struct attribute *attr)
- {
- gdb_assert (next_attr_idx < ARRAY_SIZE (attributes));
- if (attr != nullptr)
- attributes[next_attr_idx++] = attr;
- };
+ auto push_back = [&] (struct attribute *attr) {
+ gdb_assert (next_attr_idx < ARRAY_SIZE (attributes));
+ if (attr != nullptr)
+ attributes[next_attr_idx++] = attr;
+ };
if (stub_comp_unit_die != NULL)
{
For this type of thing, the left paren for the function call should
have been moved to new line too, right?
@@ -3206,11 +3190,9 @@
m_info_ptr = section->buffer + to_underlying (this_cu.sect_off);
const gdb_byte *begin_info_ptr = m_info_ptr;
- m_info_ptr = read_and_check_unit_head (&m_new_cu->header, section,
- abbrev_section, m_info_ptr,
- (this_cu.is_debug_types
- ? ruh_kind::TYPE
- : ruh_kind::COMPILE));
+ m_info_ptr = read_and_check_unit_head (
+ &m_new_cu->header, section, abbrev_section, m_info_ptr,
+ (this_cu.is_debug_types ? ruh_kind::TYPE : ruh_kind::COMPILE));
m_new_cu->str_offsets_base = parent_cu.str_offsets_base;
m_new_cu->addr_base = parent_cu.addr_base;
I like the original formatting better:
@@ -3957,8 +3934,9 @@
/* We only handle DW_FORM_ref4 here. */
const gdb_byte *sibling_data = info_ptr + abbrev->sibling_offset;
unsigned int offset = read_4_bytes (m_abfd, sibling_data);
- const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr
- = m_buffer + to_underlying (m_cu->header.sect_off) + offset;
+ const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = m_buffer
+ + to_underlying (m_cu->header.sect_off)
+ + offset;
if (sibling_ptr >= info_ptr && sibling_ptr < m_buffer_end)
return sibling_ptr;
/* Fall through to the slow way. */
While I'm certain about the indentation being used in the original, I
do like placing the left paren on the same line as the parameters:
@@ -4713,16 +4687,14 @@
included by PER_CU. */
static void
-recursively_compute_inclusions
- (std::vector<compunit_symtab *> *result,
- gdb::unordered_set<dwarf2_per_cu *> &all_children,
- gdb::unordered_set<compunit_symtab *> &all_type_symtabs,
- dwarf2_per_cu *per_cu,
- dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
- struct compunit_symtab *immediate_parent)
+recursively_compute_inclusions (
+ std::vector<compunit_symtab *> *result,
+ gdb::unordered_set<dwarf2_per_cu *> &all_children,
+ gdb::unordered_set<compunit_symtab *> &all_type_symtabs,
+ dwarf2_per_cu *per_cu, dwarf2_per_objfile *per_objfile,
+ struct compunit_symtab *immediate_parent)
{
- if (bool inserted = all_children.emplace (per_cu).second;
- !inserted)
+ if (bool inserted = all_children.emplace (per_cu).second; !inserted)
{
/* This inclusion and its children have been processed. */
return;
Here's a case where clang-format chose to use more lines than necessary:
@@ -5052,7 +5023,8 @@
{
public:
process_die_scope (die_info *die, dwarf2_cu *cu)
- : m_die (die), m_cu (cu)
+ : m_die (die),
+ m_cu (cu)
{
/* We should only be processing DIEs not already in process. */
gdb_assert (!m_die->in_process);
Versus something like this:
@@ -5926,14 +5893,9 @@
process_die (child_die, cu);
}
- add_using_directive (using_directives (cu),
- import_prefix,
- canonical_name,
- import_alias,
- imported_declaration,
- excludes,
- read_decl_line (die, cu),
- &objfile->objfile_obstack);
+ add_using_directive (using_directives (cu), import_prefix,
canonical_name,
+ import_alias, imported_declaration, excludes,
+ read_decl_line (die, cu),
&objfile->objfile_obstack); }
file_and_directory &
I like the clang-format version better on this one:
@@ -10562,8 +10496,9 @@
for (int i = 0; i < nfields; ++i)
{
struct nextfield &field
- = ((i < fip->baseclasses.size ()) ? fip->baseclasses[i]
- : fip->fields[i - fip->baseclasses.size ()]);
+ = ((i < fip->baseclasses.size ())
+ ? fip->baseclasses[i]
+ : fip->fields[i - fip->baseclasses.size ()]);
type->field (i) = field.field;
}
I think the way that clang-format formats the cases for a switch is
correct for the GNU coding style:
@@ -14950,46 +14835,45 @@
{
switch (attr->form)
{
- case DW_FORM_addrx:
- case DW_FORM_GNU_addr_index:
- attr->set_address (read_addr_index (m_cu,
- attr->as_unsigned_reprocess
()));
- break;
- case DW_FORM_loclistx:
- {
- sect_offset loclists_sect_off
- = read_loclist_index (m_cu, attr->as_unsigned_reprocess ());
+ case DW_FORM_addrx:
+ case DW_FORM_GNU_addr_index:
+ attr->set_address (read_addr_index (m_cu,
+ attr->as_unsigned_reprocess ()));
+ break;
+ case DW_FORM_loclistx:
+ {
+ sect_offset loclists_sect_off
+ = read_loclist_index (m_cu, attr->as_unsigned_reprocess ());
...
I think the original is more readable here:
@@ -16376,10 +16254,8 @@
case DW_TAG_union_type:
case DW_TAG_set_type:
case DW_TAG_enumeration_type:
- if (cu->lang () == language_c
- || cu->lang () == language_cplus
- || cu->lang () == language_objc
- || cu->lang () == language_opencl
+ if (cu->lang () == language_c || cu->lang () == language_cplus
+ || cu->lang () == language_objc || cu->lang () ==
language_opencl || cu->lang () == language_minimal)
{
/* These languages have a tag namespace. Note that
Bottom line - while I don't necessarily like the way that clang-format
does everything, it did well enough - I could live with it. This is
something that could be endlessly bike-shedded. If you see some easy
fixes for some of the things I noticed, by all means make them, otherwise,
I think this version will work and should be checked in.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread