[cfe-commits] r164874 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Lex/PPCallbacks.h include/clang/Lex/PreprocessingRecord.h lib/Frontend/DependencyFile.cpp lib/Frontend/DependencyGraph.cpp lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp lib/Lex/PreprocessingRecord.cpp lib/Lex/Prepr

[Kim Gräsman]

Ping.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There seems to be two problems: [...]
>>
>> Both of those changes look correct to me. [IIRC, the 'spelling location' is
>> what you get by flattening a (hierarchical) source location down to a
>> (non-hierarchical) location where the character literally appeared in a
>> source file, and that's not quite what you mean here, but close enough.]
>>
>>> Is there test coverage for this stuff somewhere? I'm not familiar with
>>> Clang's testing tools yet, but I would make an effort to get this
>>> under test if I knew where to start...
>>
>> I can't find any tests for this. I think the best way to proceed would be to
>> add a PPCallbacksTest.cpp to unittests/Lex.
>
> Attached is a patch for PPDirectives.cpp that implements these
> changes, as well as a new PPCallbacksTest.cpp that checks the
> FilenameRange in all these cases.
>
> The tests use FilenameRange.begin/end to get pointers directly into
> SourceManager using getCharacterData(). This range is then formed into
> a string and I assert its contents. To me, this was the clearest way
> of demonstrating how it works, but I'm not sure if it's
> idiomatic/correct. Any comments welcome.
>
> I've run this on Windows/VC10 and Ubuntu/GCC 4.6.3 -- the latter has a
> failure in Index/crash-recovery-modules.m with and without this patch,
> so I don't think it's related.
>
> Thanks,
> - Kim