Update .clang-format for Clang 10

[StephanTLavavej]

• Remove unnecessary comments in ranges tests.
  • We taught clang-format how to sort like this automatically. 😸
• Fix x86 compiler error in stljobs.h.
  • This never compiled for x86 where size_t and SIZE_T are different types. 🙀
• Update .clang-format for Clang 10.
  • AllowShortBlocksOnASingleLine changed from false/true to Never/Empty/Always. We still want the default of Never, as Empty appears to misbehave.
  • DeriveLineEnding was added, defaulting to true. We want to disable line ending auto-detection.
  • SortPriority was added. Its documentation is difficult to understand, but it can be used to group includes together while modifying their otherwise-lexicographic ordering. Here, I'm using it to group WinSDK includes together, while still sorting WinIoCtl.h last.
  • IncludeIsMainSourceRegex was added. This doesn't appear to be relevant to us.
  • IndentGotoLabels was added. We've avoided goto.
  • SpaceInEmptyBlock was added. We prefer the default of no space.
  • SpacesInConditionalStatement was added. We definitely prefer the default of no space.
  • SpaceBeforeSquareBrackets was added. Again, we definitely prefer the default of no space.
  • The Standard option was overhauled. Previously, Cpp11 meant "use the latest supported standard". That was confusing, so it has been deprecated in favor of Latest.
  • UseCRLF was added. We currently use CRLF for all files. (Previously, validate.cpp would detect LF files, but clang-format wouldn't fix them.)
• In .clang-format, delete empty lines and move comment.
  • The empty lines were intended to make it easier to see customized options, but they were actually making it harder to diff the default config against our config.
  • Move the StatementMacros comment next to our customized settings, and rewrap it.
• Reformat filesystem.cpp.

[CaseyCarter]

• Fix x86 compiler error in stljobs.h.
  • This never compiled for x86 where size_t and SIZE_T are different types. 🙀

Wait...

This never compiled for x86 where size_t and SIZE_T are different types. 🙀

...What?...

size_t and SIZE_T are different types

NOOOOOOoooooooooo.... I was so much happier not knowing this.

[statementreply]

size_t and SIZE_T are different types

bool/BOOL, byte/BYTE: Join us

[AlexGuteniev]

Guess with vNext size_t in principle can be adjusted to match SIZE_T (on the same priority with extending support for exotic pointers)

[BillyONeal]

Unlikely because size_t is defined by the CRT, not the STL.

[AlexGuteniev]

I guess it is defined in compiler due to having sizeof/alignof, but even this doesn't make the change impossible.

Making bool match BOOL is harder, since you'd want to change the ABI conventions, and ideally also the destination size of setcc...

[BillyONeal]

I guess it is defined in compiler due to having sizeof/alignof, but even this doesn't make the change impossible.

Impossible? No. Worth it? No.

Making bool match BOOL is harder, since you'd want to change the ABI conventions

Right, that one is out of our hands. Windows is not taking any sort of ABI break.

[CaseyCarter]

Thank you for keeping clang-format on target so I don't have to think about formatting.