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

[Alexander Kornienko]

> 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 ;)

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