Fixes detection of class template specializations.

Now correctly formats:
template <> class A<int> {} a;

llvm-svn: 173038
This commit is contained in:
Manuel Klimek 2013-01-21 13:58:54 +00:00
parent 5f37c82154
commit cdee74db63
2 changed files with 22 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@ -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<int> 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() {

View File

@ -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<int> f() {}\nint n;");
// Elaborate types where incorrectly parsing the structural element would
// break the indent.
verifyFormat("if (true)\n"