[clang][Tooling] Fix getFileRange returning a range spanning across macro arguments
#169757
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Eric Li (tJener) ChangesWhen the start and end token are both spelled in macro arguments, we still want to reject the range if they come from two separate macro arguments, as the original specified range is not precisely spelled in a single sequence of characters in source. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169757.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/lib/Tooling/Transformer/SourceCode.cpp b/clang/lib/Tooling/Transformer/SourceCode.cpp
index 922dafeddf416..fa9bf3427b8a0 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Tooling/Transformer/SourceCode.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Tooling/Transformer/SourceCode.cpp
@@ -86,8 +86,12 @@ llvm::Error clang::tooling::validateEditRange(const CharSourceRange &Range,
return validateRange(Range, SM, /*AllowSystemHeaders=*/false);
}
-static bool spelledInMacroDefinition(SourceLocation Loc,
- const SourceManager &SM) {
+// Returns the location of the top-level macro argument that is the spelling for
+// the expansion `Loc` is from. If `Loc` is spelled in the macro definition,
+// returns an invalid `SourceLocation`.
+static SourceLocation getMacroArgumentSpellingLoc(SourceLocation Loc,
+ const SourceManager &SM) {
+ assert(Loc.isMacroID() && "Location must be in a macro");
while (Loc.isMacroID()) {
const auto &Expansion = SM.getSLocEntry(SM.getFileID(Loc)).getExpansion();
if (Expansion.isMacroArgExpansion()) {
@@ -95,9 +99,26 @@ static bool spelledInMacroDefinition(SourceLocation Loc,
// in a macro expansion.
Loc = Expansion.getSpellingLoc();
} else {
- return true;
+ return {};
}
}
+ return Loc;
+}
+
+static bool spelledInMacroDefinition(CharSourceRange Range,
+ const SourceManager &SM) {
+ if (Range.getBegin().isMacroID() && Range.getEnd().isMacroID()) {
+ // Check whether the range is entirely within a single macro argument.
+ auto B = getMacroArgumentSpellingLoc(Range.getBegin(), SM);
+ auto E = getMacroArgumentSpellingLoc(Range.getEnd(), SM);
+ return B.isInvalid() || B != E;
+ }
+
+ if (Range.getBegin().isMacroID())
+ return getMacroArgumentSpellingLoc(Range.getBegin(), SM).isInvalid();
+ if (Range.getEnd().isMacroID())
+ return getMacroArgumentSpellingLoc(Range.getEnd(), SM).isInvalid();
+
return false;
}
@@ -158,8 +179,7 @@ static CharSourceRange getRange(const CharSourceRange &EditRange,
Range = Lexer::makeFileCharRange(EditRange, SM, LangOpts);
} else {
auto AdjustedRange = getRangeForSplitTokens(EditRange, SM, LangOpts);
- if (spelledInMacroDefinition(AdjustedRange.getBegin(), SM) ||
- spelledInMacroDefinition(AdjustedRange.getEnd(), SM))
+ if (spelledInMacroDefinition(AdjustedRange, SM))
return {};
auto B = SM.getSpellingLoc(AdjustedRange.getBegin());
diff --git a/clang/unittests/Tooling/SourceCodeTest.cpp b/clang/unittests/Tooling/SourceCodeTest.cpp
index 549b77752f1c2..4932e0bd9431b 100644
--- a/clang/unittests/Tooling/SourceCodeTest.cpp
+++ b/clang/unittests/Tooling/SourceCodeTest.cpp
@@ -510,10 +510,12 @@ TEST(SourceCodeTest, EditInvolvingExpansionIgnoringExpansionShouldFail) {
#define M1(x) x(1)
#define M2(x, y) x ## y
#define M3(x) foobar(x)
+#define M4(x, y) x y
int foobar(int);
int a = M1(foobar);
int b = M2(foo, bar(2));
int c = M3(3);
+int d = M4(foobar, (2));
)cpp");
CallsVisitor Visitor;
|
… macro arguments When the start and end token are both spelled in macro arguments, we still want to reject the range if they come from two separate macro arguments, as the original specified range is not precisely spelled in a single sequence of characters in source.
Collaborator
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/88/builds/18515 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
GeneraluseAI
pushed a commit
to GeneraluseAI/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2025
… macro arguments (llvm#169757) When the start and end token are both spelled in macro arguments, we still want to reject the range if they come from two separate macro arguments, as the original specified range is not precisely spelled in a single sequence of characters in source.
Contributor
Author
|
Had not realized that auto-merge would merge once tests finished running; I had assumed it'd be triggered by reviewer LGTM. That said, if you have any comments I can address them in a separate commit. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When the start and end token are both spelled in macro arguments, we still want to reject the range if they come from two separate macro arguments, as the original specified range is not precisely spelled in a single sequence of characters in source.