================
@@ -84,6 +84,21 @@ SourceLocation Sema::getLocForEndOfToken(SourceLocation Loc,
unsigned Offset) {
return Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken(Loc, Offset, SourceMgr, LangOpts);
}
+SourceRange Sema::getRangeForNextToken(SourceLocation Loc,
+ bool IncludeComments) {
+ if (!Loc.isValid())
+ return SourceRange();
+ std::optional<Token> NextToken =
+ Lexer::findNextToken(Loc, SourceMgr, LangOpts, IncludeComments);
+ if (!NextToken)
+ return SourceRange();
+ SourceLocation TokenStart = NextToken->getLocation();
+ SourceLocation TokenEnd = NextToken->getLastLoc();
+ if (!TokenStart.isValid() || !TokenEnd.isValid())
+ return SourceRange();
----------------
ojhunt wrote:
@cor3ntin thoughts? basically should the Lexer function take a "allow tokens
that intersect macros", should the Sema wrapper, or should - because of use
case - the Sema wrapper always exclude macros? I don't particularly like the
last option as it means the Sema and Lexer versions of the same function name
behave differently
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141148
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
