Reflow paragraphs in comments.
This is intended as a clean up after the big clang-format commit
(r280751), which unfortunately resulted in many of the comment
paragraphs in LLDB being very hard to read.
FYI, the script I used was:
import textwrap
import commands
import os
import sys
import re
tmp = "%s.tmp"%sys.argv[1]
out = open(tmp, "w+")
with open(sys.argv[1], "r") as f:
header = ""
text = ""
comment = re.compile(r'^( *//) ([^ ].*)$')
special = re.compile(r'^((([A-Z]+[: ])|([0-9]+ )).*)|(.*;)$')
for line in f:
match = comment.match(line)
if match and not special.match(match.group(2)):
# skip intentionally short comments.
if not text and len(match.group(2)) < 40:
out.write(line)
continue
if text:
text += " " + match.group(2)
else:
header = match.group(1)
text = match.group(2)
continue
if text:
filled = textwrap.wrap(text, width=(78-len(header)),
break_long_words=False)
for l in filled:
out.write(header+" "+l+'\n')
text = ""
out.write(line)
os.rename(tmp, sys.argv[1])
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46144
llvm-svn: 331197
diff --git a/lldb/source/API/SBInstruction.cpp b/lldb/source/API/SBInstruction.cpp
index 1cca8db..eece5f6 100644
--- a/lldb/source/API/SBInstruction.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/API/SBInstruction.cpp
@@ -27,12 +27,11 @@
#include "lldb/Utility/DataExtractor.h"
//----------------------------------------------------------------------
-// We recently fixed a leak in one of the Instruction subclasses where
-// the instruction will only hold a weak reference to the disassembler
-// to avoid a cycle that was keeping both objects alive (leak) and we
-// need the InstructionImpl class to make sure our public API behaves
-// as users would expect. Calls in our public API allow clients to do
-// things like:
+// We recently fixed a leak in one of the Instruction subclasses where the
+// instruction will only hold a weak reference to the disassembler to avoid a
+// cycle that was keeping both objects alive (leak) and we need the
+// InstructionImpl class to make sure our public API behaves as users would
+// expect. Calls in our public API allow clients to do things like:
//
// 1 lldb::SBInstruction inst;
// 2 inst = target.ReadInstructions(pc, 1).GetInstructionAtIndex(0)
@@ -40,12 +39,12 @@
// 4 ...
//
// There was a temporary lldb::DisassemblerSP object created in the
-// SBInstructionList that was returned by lldb.target.ReadInstructions()
-// that will go away after line 2 but the "inst" object should be able
-// to still answer questions about itself. So we make sure that any
-// SBInstruction objects that are given out have a strong reference to
-// the disassembler and the instruction so that the object can live and
-// successfully respond to all queries.
+// SBInstructionList that was returned by lldb.target.ReadInstructions() that
+// will go away after line 2 but the "inst" object should be able to still
+// answer questions about itself. So we make sure that any SBInstruction
+// objects that are given out have a strong reference to the disassembler and
+// the instruction so that the object can live and successfully respond to all
+// queries.
//----------------------------------------------------------------------
class InstructionImpl {
public: