[clang-format] Possible regression clang-format-19?

[prj-]

Could you please let me know which one is correct?

$ clang-format foo.cpp 
struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C::*)(Args...) const> {};
$ clang-format-19 foo.cpp                                                                               
struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C:: *)(Args...) const> {};
$ clang-format-19 --version
Debian clang-format version 19.0.0 (++20240527100630+434ee06d7761-1~exp1~20240527220812.2113)

[owenca]

Version 19 is correct. See #86253.

[prj-]

Thank you!

[prj-]

@owenca, this has changed yet again, so which version is correct, 18 and 20 past 2024-08-25, or 19?

$ clang-format-20 foo.cpp 
struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C::*)(Args...) const> {};
$ clang-format-20 --version
Debian clang-format version 20.0.0 (++20240825100934+5b41eb3a6dcd-1~exp1~20240825221045.2294)
$  clang-format-20 foo.cpp  
struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C:: *)(Args...) const> {};
$ clang-format-20 --version                          
Debian clang-format version 20.0.0 (++20240821111322+a80dd44b0d96-1~exp1~20240821111500.2285)

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-bug

Author: Pierre Jolivet (prj-)

Could you please let me know which one is correct? ```cpp $ clang-format foo.cpp struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C::*)(Args...) const> {}; $ clang-format-19 foo.cpp struct func_traits_impl<Ret (C:: *)(Args...) const> {}; $ clang-format-19 --version Debian clang-format version 19.0.0 (++20240527100630+434ee06d7761-1~exp1~20240527220812.2113) ```

[owenca]

See #86253 (comment) and the followup commit 714033a, which has been backported to the 19.x Release branch. So the soon-to-be released 19.1.0 and the trunk (20.0.0git) are deemed to be correct right now.

[owenca]

Fixed by 714033a.

[prj-]

OK, nice, no change in between 18, 19, and 20 then!

[owenca]

Yes, 18 is also correct.