ymandel marked 3 inline comments as done.
ymandel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Transformer.cpp:76
+static llvm::Optional<CharSourceRange>
+makeValidRange(CharSourceRange Range, const MatchResult &Result) {
+ const SourceManager &SM = *Result.SourceManager;
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > Could we add unit tests for this particular function?
> > >
> > > Interesting cases (`[[` and `]]` mark the start and end of a range):
> > > ```
> > > #define FOO(a) a+a;
> > > #define BAR 10+
> > >
> > > // change part of a macro argument
> > > int a = FOO([[10]] + 10);
> > >
> > > // change the whole macro expansion
> > > int b = [[FOO(10+10)]];
> > >
> > > // Try to change 10 inside 'BAR', but not '+'.
> > > // Should this fail? Should we give a warning?
> > > int c = BAR 3;
> > >
> > > // Try changing the lhs (10) of a binary expr, but not rhs.
> > > // Is that allowed? Should we give a warning?
> > > int d = FOO(10);
> > > ```
> > Sure. What do you think of exposing this function in
> > clang/include/clang/Tooling/Refactoring/SourceCode.h and testing it from
> > there?
> Sounds reasonable. Was thinking of a better name, maybe something like
> `getRangeForEdit()`?
> Would also suggest to accept `SourceManager` and `LangOptions` instead of
> `MatchResult` to narrow down the requirements on the clients.
Went with passing the ASTContext rather than the MatchResult (in the new
revision D64924)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64518/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64518
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
