Seems straight forward.

In D127873#3614559, @jackhong12 wrote:

Sorry, I don't have commit access. @HazardyKnusperkeks, could you help me commit it?

If I want to contribute to LLVM in the future, how do I get the commit permission? Does it depend on the number of patches I submit?

But for now you should wait for @MyDeveloperDay that he at least removes the changes needed, or state what you have to change, or even better accept it.

In D127873#3610106, @jackhong12 wrote:

Hi. I passed the unit tests on my computer. But the build status here is failed. The build log only shows the issue is related to git reset --hard. So, I don't know where the bug is. Could you give me some hints to fix this issue? Thanks!

Nice work adding the capability to the dump script.

In D127873#3589465, @jackhong12 wrote:

I think it's a good idea. When does MatchingParen bind? The value of PrevToken->MatchingParen is still NULL in determineStarAmpUsage function.

Could you please either directly link to the github issue or better use llvm.org/pr55810 than just #55810 ?

In D127873#3586475, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

what about (may not be useful but compiles)

struct {
    int foo;    
} &&ptr2 = {};

https://godbolt.org/z/rbb8x3hKP

Can there be a test case, not related to Verilog? Or do we need to wait until you pump up the support for that?

In D126132#3533033, @owenpan wrote:

@HazardyKnusperkeks I think you know this better than any of us as you added the assertion to setType(). Does this look ok to you?

In D124749#3514224, @sstwcw wrote:

The two parents of this revision change the same file, so the build bot says patch does not apply. Does that mean I have to submit the parent patches with less context?

For me there needs no bug report, but could you comment on the misformatting without the patch?

I currently don't know exactly how isSimpleTypeSpecifier works, but what is with
auto x = Foo * []{return 5;}();
auto x = Foo * *[]{static y = 5; return &y;}();

There seem to be failing tests. Did you run the FormatTests?

could you please reupload your patch with the full diff context? And please add a regression test.

No I think it is a step in the right direction. It will help in common cases, and I still don't know when I will have the time to work on that.
But you are very welcome to join the review, and of course adding patches. :)

Not yet: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120034

As this is still on my todo list: Have you considered

concept X = Bar<5 < 4, 5 > 8>;
concept X = Bar<5 < 4, false>;

Or stuff like that?

In D122064#3430644, @kuzkry wrote:

Kind reminder, please deliver this revision. I don't have write access.

I cannot view the diff between the last two revisions:

In D121756#3407320, @owenpan wrote:

In D121756#3398165, @sstwcw wrote:

It turned out this patch does change behavior.

-  while (
-      FormatTok->isOneOf(tok::identifier, tok::kw_requires, tok::coloncolon)) {
+  while (FormatTok->isOneOf(tok::identifier, tok::kw_requires,
+                            tok::coloncolon)) {

So what do I do?

IMO, refactoring and cleaning up code should be NFC. You can first add while, switch, etc (if it makes sense) in one patch and then refactor in another patch (or vice versa). It would be much easier to review.

Just a side note, I often get this on your changes:
Unhandled Exception ("Exception")
Found unknown intradiff source line, expected a line beginning with "+", "-", or " " (space): \ No newline at end of file
.

Just a formality.