Typz added a comment.
OK.
So you mean a solution like the one discussed earlier would be the way to go?
> I mean that we can configure macros in the format style, like "define A(X)
> class X {". I'm not 100% sure whether we would just try to use the
> Preprocessor for this, or whether we'd want to only allow a small subset of
> actual macros, but the general idea would be the same: The
> UnwrappedLineParser would parse the macro at the expansion location A(X) into
> an unwrapped line, and then parse the expansion into a child line, with the
> tokens tha tare not in the argument of the call being marked as fixed (parent
> child might also be better inverted).
(As a side-note, I want to stress out that we would actually need a
'reversible' description to support the namespace case, to allow generating the
end-of-namespace comment)
Is there any work on that side, any timeline when this may be supported ?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
