[PATCH] Fix assertion in google-explicit-constructor check when the constructor isdefined in a macro.

[Manuel Klimek]

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:

> > This seems a very conservative approach, as there seem to be many cases
> where we can provide a fix in a macro...
>
> Do you know a way to ensure that a change to a macro is safe? We don't
> want to remove "explicit" from a definition of a compatibility macro, for
> example ;)
>

Good point. In that case, LG.


>
> Also, this case is quite rare. I've found only one instance internally. So
> maybe we shouldn't worry much about it.
>
> > Perhaps we can use Lexer::makeFileCharRange?
>
> This could be used to avoid problems with other (possible, but extremely
> rare) corner cases.
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D3611
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140505/5b83b58c/attachment.html>