[PATCH] D15443: Fix getLocEnd for function declarations with exception specification.

[Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15443#324426, @adek05 wrote:

> Adding testcases in unittest/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp as suggested by @aaronballman
>
> Interestingly, without my change tests for function declarations pass. Only member functions fail:
>
>   tools/clang/unittests/AST/ASTTests
>   ...
>   [----------] 2 tests from FunctionDecl
>   [ RUN      ] FunctionDecl.FunctionDeclWithThrowSpecification
>   [       OK ] FunctionDecl.FunctionDeclWithThrowSpecification (17 ms)
>   [ RUN      ] FunctionDecl.FunctionDeclWithNoExceptSpecification
>   [       OK ] FunctionDecl.FunctionDeclWithNoExceptSpecification (10 ms)
>   [----------] 2 tests from FunctionDecl (27 ms total)
>   
>   [----------] 2 tests from CXXMethodDecl
>   [ RUN      ] CXXMethodDecl.CXXMethodDeclWithThrowSpecification
>   /Users/adek/llvm-git/tools/clang/unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:569: Failure
>   Value of: Verifier.match( "class A {\n" "void f() throw();\n" "};\n", functionDecl())
>     Actual: false (Expected range <2:1-2:16>, found <input.cc:2:1-input.cc:2:17>)
>   Expected: true
>   [  FAILED  ] CXXMethodDecl.CXXMethodDeclWithThrowSpecification (10 ms)
>   [ RUN      ] CXXMethodDecl.CXXMethodDeclWithNoExceptSpecification
>   /Users/adek/llvm-git/tools/clang/unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:580: Failure
>   Value of: Verifier.match( "class A {\n" "void f() noexcept(false);\n" "};\n", functionDecl(), Language::Lang_CXX11)
>     Actual: false (Expected range <2:1-2:24>, found <input.cc:2:1-input.cc:2:25>)
>   Expected: true
>   [  FAILED  ] CXXMethodDecl.CXXMethodDeclWithNoExceptSpecification (10 ms)
>   [----------] 2 tests from CXXMethodDecl (20 ms total)
>   
>
> Not sure why would they take different codepaths, throw and noexcept are C++(11) specific so both should go through ParseDeclCXX.


It would be nice to understand why that is the case and whether there's some code sharing possibilities, but since this is such a small change, I'm not certain of the gains.

LGTM! Thanks!


http://reviews.llvm.org/D15443