curdeius added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixer.cpp:72
- Tok = FirstNSTok;
- while (Tok && !Tok->is(tok::l_brace)) {
+ bool IsPrevColoncolon = false;
+ bool HasColoncolon = false;
----------------
Nit: Personally, I'd put these bools further down, closer to the place where
they are used and after AddMacro lambda.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixer.cpp:85
+ Tok = Tok->getNextNonComment();
+ for (int NestLevel = 1; Tok && NestLevel > 0;) {
+ if (Tok->is(tok::l_paren))
----------------
This loop seems very similar to the one that skips the attributes on lines
45-53, could you please refactor?
A lambda taking a pair of token kinds (l_paren/r_paren, l_square/r_square)
should be fine.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/NamespaceEndCommentsFixerTest.cpp:192
"}"));
+ EXPECT_EQ("#define M(x) x##x\n"
+ "namespace A M(x) {\n"
----------------
zequanwu wrote:
> 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.
In a different test case, could you add A to AttributeMacros and test that we
skip it like other attributes?
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
