Reflow paragraphs in comments.

This is intended as a clean up after the big clang-format commit
(r280751), which unfortunately resulted in many of the comment
paragraphs in LLDB being very hard to read.

FYI, the script I used was:

import textwrap
import commands
import os
import sys
import re
tmp = "%s.tmp"%sys.argv[1]
out = open(tmp, "w+")
with open(sys.argv[1], "r") as f:
  header = ""
  text = ""
  comment = re.compile(r'^( *//) ([^ ].*)$')
  special = re.compile(r'^((([A-Z]+[: ])|([0-9]+ )).*)|(.*;)$')
  for line in f:
      match = comment.match(line)
      if match and not special.match(match.group(2)):
          # skip intentionally short comments.
          if not text and len(match.group(2)) < 40:
              out.write(line)
              continue

          if text:
              text += " " + match.group(2)
          else:
              header = match.group(1)
              text = match.group(2)

          continue

      if text:
          filled = textwrap.wrap(text, width=(78-len(header)),
                                 break_long_words=False)
          for l in filled:
              out.write(header+" "+l+'\n')
              text = ""

      out.write(line)

os.rename(tmp, sys.argv[1])

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46144

llvm-svn: 331197

lldb/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepUntil.cpp

@@ -151,8 +151,8 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
     StopReason reason = stop_info_sp->GetStopReason();
 
     if (reason == eStopReasonBreakpoint) {
-      // If this is OUR breakpoint, we're fine, otherwise we don't know why this
-      // happened...
+      // If this is OUR breakpoint, we're fine, otherwise we don't know why
+      // this happened...
       BreakpointSiteSP this_site =
           m_thread.GetProcess()->GetBreakpointSiteList().FindByID(
               stop_info_sp->GetValue());
@@ -163,18 +163,13 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
 
       if (this_site->IsBreakpointAtThisSite(m_return_bp_id)) {
         // If we are at our "step out" breakpoint, and the stack depth has
-        // shrunk, then
-        // this is indeed our stop.
-        // If the stack depth has grown, then we've hit our step out breakpoint
-        // recursively.
-        // If we are the only breakpoint at that location, then we do explain
-        // the stop, and
-        // we'll just continue.
-        // If there was another breakpoint here, then we don't explain the stop,
-        // but we won't
-        // mark ourselves Completed, because maybe that breakpoint will
-        // continue, and then
-        // we'll finish the "until".
+        // shrunk, then this is indeed our stop. If the stack depth has grown,
+        // then we've hit our step out breakpoint recursively. If we are the
+        // only breakpoint at that location, then we do explain the stop, and
+        // we'll just continue. If there was another breakpoint here, then we
+        // don't explain the stop, but we won't mark ourselves Completed,
+        // because maybe that breakpoint will continue, and then we'll finish
+        // the "until".
         bool done;
         StackID cur_frame_zero_id;
 
@@ -209,8 +204,8 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
             else {
               StackFrameSP older_frame_sp = m_thread.GetStackFrameAtIndex(1);
 
-              // But if we can't even unwind one frame we should just get out of
-              // here & stop...
+              // But if we can't even unwind one frame we should just get out
+              // of here & stop...
               if (older_frame_sp) {
                 const SymbolContext &older_context =
                     older_frame_sp->GetSymbolContext(eSymbolContextEverything);
@@ -230,8 +225,8 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
 
             // Otherwise we've hit this breakpoint recursively.  If we're the
             // only breakpoint here, then we do explain the stop, and we'll
-            // continue.
-            // If not then we should let higher plans handle this stop.
+            // continue. If not then we should let higher plans handle this
+            // stop.
             if (this_site->GetNumberOfOwners() == 1)
               m_explains_stop = true;
             else {
@@ -242,8 +237,8 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
           }
         }
       }
-      // If we get here we haven't hit any of our breakpoints, so let the higher
-      // plans take care of the stop.
+      // If we get here we haven't hit any of our breakpoints, so let the
+      // higher plans take care of the stop.
       m_explains_stop = false;
       return;
     } else if (IsUsuallyUnexplainedStopReason(reason)) {
@@ -256,16 +251,15 @@ void ThreadPlanStepUntil::AnalyzeStop() {
 
 bool ThreadPlanStepUntil::DoPlanExplainsStop(Event *event_ptr) {
   // We don't explain signals or breakpoints (breakpoints that handle stepping
-  // in or
-  // out will be handled by a child plan.
+  // in or out will be handled by a child plan.
   AnalyzeStop();
   return m_explains_stop;
 }
 
 bool ThreadPlanStepUntil::ShouldStop(Event *event_ptr) {
-  // If we've told our self in ExplainsStop that we plan to continue, then
-  // do so here.  Otherwise, as long as this thread has stopped for a reason,
-  // we will stop.
+  // If we've told our self in ExplainsStop that we plan to continue, then do
+  // so here.  Otherwise, as long as this thread has stopped for a reason, we
+  // will stop.
 
   StopInfoSP stop_info_sp = GetPrivateStopInfo();
   if (!stop_info_sp || stop_info_sp->GetStopReason() == eStopReasonNone)