[clang-format] Use proper flags for git diff-tree #155247
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
From local testing, git diff-tree does not support three dot diffs correctly, instead expecting the --merge-base flag to be passed along with two commits. This patch updates the git-clang-format script to be correct. I don't think we ever ran into this issue before because we never ended up using it. For the PR code format job I believe we would just explicitly pass the merge base, completely bypassing the problem.
Member
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-format Author: Aiden Grossman (boomanaiden154) ChangesFrom local testing, git diff-tree does not support three dot diffs correctly, instead expecting the --merge-base flag to be passed along with two commits. From my reading, the documentation (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff-tree) also confirms this. This patch updates the git-clang-format script to be correct. I don't think we ever ran into this issue before because we never ended up using it. For the PR code format job I believe we would just explicitly pass the merge base, completely bypassing the problem. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/155247.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/tools/clang-format/git-clang-format b/clang/tools/clang-format/git-clang-format
index e709803d9a3f1..fe2dd283d403e 100755
--- a/clang/tools/clang-format/git-clang-format
+++ b/clang/tools/clang-format/git-clang-format
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ def compute_diff(commits, files, staged, diff_common_commit):
if len(commits) == 2:
git_tool = "diff-tree"
if diff_common_commit:
- commits = [f"{commits[0]}...{commits[1]}"]
+ extra_args += ["--merge-base"]
elif staged:
extra_args += ["--cached"]
|
owenca
approved these changes
Aug 26, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
/cherry-pick f09986a |
Member
|
/pull-request #155466 |
tru
pushed a commit
to llvmbot/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2025
From local testing, git diff-tree does not support three dot diffs correctly, instead expecting the --merge-base flag to be passed along with two commits. From my reading, the documentation (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff-tree) also confirms this. This patch updates the git-clang-format script to be correct. I don't think we ever ran into this issue before because we never ended up using it. For the PR code format job I believe we would just explicitly pass the merge base, completely bypassing the problem. (cherry picked from commit f09986a)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From local testing, git diff-tree does not support three dot diffs correctly, instead expecting the --merge-base flag to be passed along with two commits. From my reading, the documentation (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff-tree) also confirms this. This patch updates the git-clang-format script to be correct.
I don't think we ever ran into this issue before because we never ended up using it. For the PR code format job I believe we would just explicitly pass the merge base, completely bypassing the problem.