From 3a3408cceb438af7cdebb5b3d938abb916162bb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Manuel Klimek Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:58:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixes detection of class template specializations. Now correctly formats: template <> class A {} a; git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@173038 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp | 15 ++++++++++++++- unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp b/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp index dffc309a09..7f9e97eab0 100644 --- a/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp +++ b/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp @@ -620,7 +620,17 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseRecord() { FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::coloncolon)) nextToken(); - if (FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::colon)) { + // Note that parsing away template declarations here leads to incorrectly + // accepting function declarations as record declarations. + // In general, we cannot solve this problem. Consider: + // class A B() {} + // which can be a function definition or a class definition when B() is a + // macro. If we find enough real-world cases where this is a problem, we + // can parse for the 'template' keyword in the beginning of the statement, + // and thus rule out the record production in case there is no template + // (this would still leave us with an ambiguity between template function + // and class declarations). + if (FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::colon) || FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::less)) { while (FormatTok.Tok.isNot(tok::l_brace)) { if (FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::semi)) return; @@ -630,6 +640,9 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseRecord() { } if (FormatTok.Tok.is(tok::l_brace)) parseBlock(); + // We fall through to parsing a structural element afterwards, so + // class A {} n, m; + // will end up in one unwrapped line. } void UnwrappedLineParser::parseObjCProtocolList() { diff --git a/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp b/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp index 3c929a3f53..4725889247 100644 --- a/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp +++ b/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp @@ -1530,6 +1530,14 @@ TEST_F(FormatTest, UnderstandContextOfRecordTypeKeywords) { // Redefinition from nested context: verifyFormat("class A::B::C {} n;"); + // Template definitions. + // FIXME: This is still incorrectly handled at the formatter side. + verifyFormat("template <> struct X < 15, i < 3 && 42 < 50 && 33<28> {};"); + + // FIXME: + // This now gets parsed incorrectly as class definition. + // verifyFormat("class A f() {}\nint n;"); + // Elaborate types where incorrectly parsing the structural element would // break the indent. verifyFormat("if (true)\n" -- 2.50.1