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
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
