[PATCH] D144170: [clang-format] Add simple macro replacements in formatting.

[Manuel Klimek via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

klimek added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:4592
+          !Macros.hasArity(ID->TokenText, Args->size())) {
+        // The macro is overloaded to be both object-like and function-like,
+        // but none of the function-like arities match the number of arguments.
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> klimek wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > Strictly I don't think this comment is true, we hit this path when it's **only** an object-like macro, used before parens.
> > > 
> > > For this reason you might *not* want the dbgs() here but rather in the bottom `else`
> > I'm pretty sure we hit this when it's overloaded for both, but we call it with the wrong arity.
> > E.g. A=x, A(x, y, z)=x y z
> > 
> > A(1, 2)
> > - Macros.objectLike(A) -> true
> > - Args -> true
> > - !Macros.hasArity(A, 2) -> true
> I agree that (the case described in the comment) => (we get to this point in the code).
> 
> I'm disputing that (we get to this point in the code) => (the case described in the comment).
> 
> i.e. given `A=x`, code=`A(1, 2)`, we also get: `objectLike(A) -> true`, `Args -> true`, `!Macros.hasArity(A, 2) -> true`, but this time the comment is lying about the state.
Ah, your comment made me think it was the former; I think the dbgs() is still what I want, but with an "either or" dbgs().

Adapted the comment in the code and the dbgs() to match.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D144170/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D144170