zequanwu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixerTest.cpp:192
"}"));
+ EXPECT_EQ("#define M(x) x##x\n"
+ "namespace A M(x) {\n"
----------------
zequanwu wrote:
> curdeius wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > Can you test the A B case? We can’t have a space right?
> > What's the rationale behind keeping `M(x)` in one case and not the other?
> > How can you decide?
> In the first one, we keep `M(x)` because we don't know that is `A` or `M(x)`
> the name.
> In the second one, because we see a `::`, so we know that's the name and
> discard `M(x)`.
Added a test with `A B`.
In that case, we will have `// namespace A B`, since we don't know which one is
the real name. Either one could be a macro that expands to an attribute.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixerTest.cpp:192-211
+ EXPECT_EQ("#define M(x) x##x\n"
+ "namespace A M(x) {\n"
+ "int i;\n"
+ "int j;\n"
+ "}// namespace A M(x)",
+ fixNamespaceEndComments("#define M(x) x##x\n"
+ "namespace A M(x) {\n"
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > Can you test the A B case? We can’t have a space right?
> What's the rationale behind keeping `M(x)` in one case and not the other?
> How can you decide?
In the first one, we keep `M(x)` because we don't know that is `A` or `M(x)`
the name.
In the second one, because we see a `::`, so we know that's the name and
discard `M(x)`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121269/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121269
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
