owenca wrote:
> > can you also add a test to clang/unittests/Format/TokenAnnotatorTest.cpp
> > that ensures trailing attribute-like macros receive `StartOfName`
> > annotation to make sure we don't regress the signal in the future?
>
> ok, that opened a whole can of worms.
>
> ```
> Tokens = annotate("void foo GUARDED_BY(x)");
> ```
>
> gets annotated as
>
> ```
> {(void, "void" , Unknown),
> (identifier, "foo" , StartOfName),
> (identifier, "GUARDED_BY" , FunctionDeclarationName),
> (l_paren, "(" , Unknown),
> (identifier, "x" , Unknown),
> (r_paren, ")" , Unknown),
> (eof, "" , Unknown)}
> ```
>
> I expected to get some heuristics for attributes, but instead `GUARDED_BY`
> gets annotated as a function declaration name. It feels that the current
> behavior is a result of two mistakes cancelling each other out. I don't think
> adding a unit test like this is warranted, even if formatting behavior is
> actually correct.
>
> @owenca what are your thoughts on this change and whether we should add a
> test here?
We usually add a FIXME test wrapped in a `#if 0` block:
```
// FIXME: ...
#if 0
Tokens = annotate("void foo GUARDED_BY(x);");
...
Tokens = annotate("void foo GUARDED_BY(x) {}");
...
#endif
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76804
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
