owenpan added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:2009-2010
(Line.MightBeFunctionDecl || Line.InPPDirective) &&
- Current.NestingLevel == 0 &&
+ Current.NestingLevel == 0 && Current.Previous &&
!Current.Previous->isOneOf(tok::kw_operator, tok::identifier)) {
// not auto operator->() -> xxx;
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
> owenpan wrote:
> > `Current.Previous` can't be null here because `AutoFound` is `true`.
> Could you please elaborate on why you believe it is safe to move the check of
> `Current.Previous` inside the body of the `if` statement? Doing so will short
> circuit the remaining `else if` cases such that `Current.setType()` will not
> be called at all. It isn't obvious to me that those cases should not be
> considered if the previous token was not one of `kw_operator` or
> `identifier`. This looks like it has potential to change behavior.
>
> The change that was originally proposed is clearly safe.
> Could you please elaborate on why you believe it is safe to move the check of
> `Current.Previous` inside the body of the `if` statement? Doing so will short
> circuit the remaining `else if` cases such that `Current.setType()` will not
> be called at all. It isn't obvious to me that those cases should not be
> considered if the previous token was not one of `kw_operator` or
> `identifier`. This looks like it has potential to change behavior.
Ahh, you are right.
> The change that was originally proposed is clearly safe.
My point that `Previous` can't be null still stands. So we should either make
no changes here or add an assertion just before the `if` statement at line 1991
above.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158293/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158293
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
