ilya-biryukov wrote: > can you also add a test to clang/unittests/Format/TokenAnnotatorTest.cpp that > ensures trailing attribute-like macros receive `StartOfName` annotation to > make sure we don't regress the signal in the future?
ok, that opened a whole can of worms. ``` Tokens = annotate("void foo GUARDED_BY(x)"); ``` gets annotated as ``` {(void, "void" , Unknown), (identifier, "foo" , StartOfName), (identifier, "GUARDED_BY" , FunctionDeclarationName), (l_paren, "(" , Unknown), (identifier, "x" , Unknown), (r_paren, ")" , Unknown), (eof, "" , Unknown)} ``` I expected to get some heuristics for attributes, but instead `GUARDED_BY` gets annotated as a function declaration name.\ It feels that the current behavior is a result of two mistakes cancelling each other out. I don't think adding a unit test like this is warranted, even if formatting behavior is actually correct. @owenca what are your thoughts on this change and whether we should add a test here? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits