================
@@ -1071,6 +1071,16 @@ TEST_F(TokenAnnotatorTest,
UnderstandsRequiresClausesAndConcepts) {
"concept C = (!Foo<T>) && Bar;");
ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 19u) << Tokens;
EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[15], tok::ampamp, TT_BinaryOperator);
+
+ Tokens = annotate("void f() & requires(C<decltype(x)>) {}");
+ ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 18u) << Tokens;
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[4], tok::amp, TT_PointerOrReference);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresClause);
+
+ Tokens = annotate("auto f() -> int& requires(C<decltype(x)>) {}");
+ ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 20u) << Tokens;
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[6], tok::amp, TT_PointerOrReference);
+ EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[7], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresClause);
}
----------------
HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
I _think_ the idea was that if it is an expression we would detect the type
before reaching the `r_paren` and thus it has to be a clause. But 2 years have
passed and I don't know what I was thinking last week. ;) Had to reread the
code and try to guess the conditions.
Which shows why one should comment complicated code...
If I read the code right my question is why didn't `Foo<decktype(t)>` suffice
`FoundType && !LastWasColonColon && OpenAngles == 0` when hitting the `x`?
On a different note one could extend the look behind to see if one finds a `=`
or a `(` for any conditional, or a requires expression `}`, then it should be
an expression.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78847
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
