In D93986#2519013, @curdeius wrote:

Fixed!

In D93986#2518402, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:

I did not re-accept this, because of the script change. I'm okay with it, but I never looked really at the script. I think it should be changed afterwards to error or warn again, but not on this enum. Maybe one could annotate enums which don't have to be fully documented?

In D93986#2518259, @curdeius wrote:

Do you have commit access?

If I understand the LLVM mailing list correctly, everything in the repo by the 26th will still go into LLVM 12, right? Any chance we could get this in by then?

Fix error introduced by rebase

Of course there was another merge conflict in the release notes. Mental note to self: Put release note changes in separate commit.

Fixed the last spelling issues in the documentation. If the automated checks pass, this is ready for takeoff from my side. Thanks for your reviews!

Fix spelling issues in doc

In D93986#2509045, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:

How is it going? I would like to add some new alignment options and it would be stupid not to do it on top of this.

Fixed documentation for the AlignConsecutive* options. I have used the suggested approach: Remove all documentation from AlignConsecutiveStyle and instead put the documentation of the possible values and what they do in the AlignConsecutive* options' docs.

Fixed formatting issue.

In D93986#2489140, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:

Apart from my inline comment and the pre merge check this is superb. (I will not accept it, until we have reached a conclusion for the documentation.)

Fix merge conflict in the release notes.

This is now an all-in-one revision, including bit fields, assignments, declarations and macros. I did not reproduce the full "across empty lines, across comments, across empty lines *and* comments" test suite for all four of them, since they all use the same logic (and code, mostly). AlignConsecutiveAssignments is tested extensively, AlignConsecutiveBitFields and AlignConsecutiveDeclarations only have tests for AlignAcrossEmptyLinesAndComments (since they delegate to the same AlignTokens method), and AlignConsecutiveMacros has its own set of tests, since it uses a different implementation (of the same logic, basically).

In D93986#2477860, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:

In D93986#2477474, @tinloaf wrote:

In D93986#2477383, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

Ideally we should add a comment to the release notes, (which you could do via a separate NFC commit if you wanted)

Thank, I'll do that. But before that, I will create a revision that adds the same feature for the other three alignment types.

I think it should happen in this revision so that it is atomically.

• Unify the type of the options for AlignConsecutive{BitFields, Declarations, Assignments, Macros}
• Implement across-alignment for bit fields, declarations, assignments and macros
• Add tests for across-alignment for bit fields, declarations, assignments and macros
• Add changelog entry

In D93986#2477383, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

Ideally we should add a comment to the release notes, (which you could do via a separate NFC commit if you wanted)

Fix bogus default case reported by clang-tidy.

Address reviewer comments, noteworthy changes:

Address MyDeveloperDay's review comments.

Fix formatting issue resulting from ancient clang-format.

Two remarks, first: I made the change only for AlignConsecutiveAssignments, but I think it should be consistent for AlignConsecutiveMacros, AlignConsecutiveBitFields and AlignConsecutiveDeclarations, as well. If this change is accepted, I will make corresponding changes to the other three.