From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Date: | 2015-05-27 21:08:56 |
Message-ID: | 20150527210856.GO5310@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-27 16:55:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/26/15 8:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I actually think both are relatively easy to figure out without a
> > typedef list. There's harder cases though, e.g. (char *) &foo in an
> > expression is already more complicated.
>
> Well, if you know of a way to fix this, let's see it. Others have been
> trying for 20+ years.
I don't think I need to. clang-format has apparently done pretty much
what I described:
typedef struct foo {int a} foo;
struct bar;
int frak(struct bar * barstar, foo * foostar, unknown * unknown)
{
struct bar * barstar2;
foo * foostar2;
int * intstar2;
unknown * unknown2;
pointless * operation;
a = foostart * barstar2;
x = (frak *) & blub;
}
=>
typedef struct foo
{
int a
} foo;
struct bar;
int
frak(struct bar *barstar, foo *foostar, unknown *unknown)
{
struct bar *barstar2;
foo *foostar2;
int *intstar2;
unknown *unknown2;
pointless *operation;
a = foostart * barstar2;
x = (frak *) &blub;
}
Yes, it gets pointless * operation wrong. But boohoo.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-05-27 21:19:33 | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-05-27 20:55:45 | Re: Run pgindent now? |