In D93490#2467733, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

remove = and ~ cases

In D93490#2463068, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

Maybe @JVApen can help as they logged https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48539

I'm not a Qt developer so I can't really comment beyond fixing what was in the bug rpeort

Any chance we can still get this in LLVM 11?

I'm missing some documentation to understand the corner cases. How does this check behave with suppressed warnings for checks which ain't currently checked. (Using -no-... on a code base or suppressing the warnings via the pragmas)

How does this check deal with atomic members?

Looking at the documentation and the examples, it is unclear to me what the behavior of checking is when you call a function without throw/noexcept if you can't see the implementation. (Other cpp file)

How does this new file know if it should handle it's flags as it does in clang.exe or clang-cl.exe?

I'm not sure if I'm the right person to do reviews, as I'm mostly a user of the tool and have not yet done any developments or bug fixes to it.
However, from what I know from coding, this looks good to me.

In D14484#284767, @djasper wrote:

Please read
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options

Does your style option qualify?

I've fixed the method to do the indentation, by adapting indent in ContinuationIndenter::getNewLineColumn()

I'm gonna assume you guys now the code base better then I do :p
By just indenting the braces, its gonna most likely be much cleaner code,
though then all code in UnwrappedLineParser will be the exact same for
Allman and Whitesmiths.
Any ideas how to make sure this will stay in sync in the future?