================
@@ -3180,6 +3180,18 @@ TEST_F(TokenAnnotatorTest, FunctionTryBlock) {
EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[36], tok::l_brace, TT_FunctionLBrace);
}
+TEST_F(TokenAnnotatorTest, TypenameMacro) {
+ auto Style = getLLVMStyle();
+ Style.TypenameMacros.push_back("STRUCT");
+
+ auto Tokens = annotate("STRUCT(T, B) { int i; };", Style);
+ ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 13u);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[0], tok::identifier, TT_TypenameMacro);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[1], tok::l_paren, TT_TypeDeclarationParen);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::r_paren, TT_TypeDeclarationParen);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[6], tok::l_brace, TT_Unknown);
----------------
owenca wrote:
> Is `TT_Unknown` the correct type?
Yes. We use it to verify that a token is not annotated (incorrectly).
> I know we can't really say if it's a `TT_StructLBrace` or `TT_ClassLBrace`
> (or even `TT_UnionLBrace`), but would it harm to just guess one of them?
Or `TT_EnumLBrace` or anyone in
[here](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93634#issuecomment-2156968344).
We shouldn’t make a wild guess because the type of the braces depends on how
the macro is defined (and on what’s between the braces).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96026
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
