Could somebody take a look at this? Getting this behavior fixed and fixated would make our lives as PPCallbacks implementors much more comfortable :-)
Thanks, - Kim On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Kim Gräsman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ping. > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Kim Gräsman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Gräsman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There seems to be two problems: [...] >>> >>> Both of those changes look correct to me. [IIRC, the 'spelling location' is >>> what you get by flattening a (hierarchical) source location down to a >>> (non-hierarchical) location where the character literally appeared in a >>> source file, and that's not quite what you mean here, but close enough.] >>> >>>> Is there test coverage for this stuff somewhere? I'm not familiar with >>>> Clang's testing tools yet, but I would make an effort to get this >>>> under test if I knew where to start... >>> >>> I can't find any tests for this. I think the best way to proceed would be to >>> add a PPCallbacksTest.cpp to unittests/Lex. >> >> Attached is a patch for PPDirectives.cpp that implements these >> changes, as well as a new PPCallbacksTest.cpp that checks the >> FilenameRange in all these cases. >> >> The tests use FilenameRange.begin/end to get pointers directly into >> SourceManager using getCharacterData(). This range is then formed into >> a string and I assert its contents. To me, this was the clearest way >> of demonstrating how it works, but I'm not sure if it's >> idiomatic/correct. Any comments welcome. >> >> I've run this on Windows/VC10 and Ubuntu/GCC 4.6.3 -- the latter has a >> failure in Index/crash-recovery-modules.m with and without this patch, >> so I don't think it's related. >> >> Thanks, >> - Kim _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
