================
@@ -243,14 +244,16 @@ class AnnotatingParser {
// operator that was misinterpreted because we are parsing template
// parameters.
// FIXME: This is getting out of hand, write a decent parser.
- if (InExpr && !Line.startsWith(tok::kw_template) &&
+ if (InExpr && !SeenFatArrow && !Line.startsWith(tok::kw_template) &&
Prev.is(TT_BinaryOperator)) {
const auto Precedence = Prev.getPrecedence();
if (Precedence > prec::Conditional && Precedence < prec::Relational)
return false;
}
if (Prev.isOneOf(tok::question, tok::colon) && !Style.isProto())
SeenTernaryOperator = true;
+ else if (Prev.is(TT_FatArrow))
----------------
owenca wrote:
> The point that's puzzling me is, why don't we treat
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/834ac2e205dd8e492d6084a7952e68e19a1f54db
> and
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/73c961a3345c697f40e2148318f34f5f347701c1
> similarly.
The latter was an attempt at fixing both the regression caused by the former
and the
[issue](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/100300#issuecomment-2249303341)
with bitwise operators _outside_ templates. By the time the issue with bitwise
operators _inside_ templates was [brought
up](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108671#discussion_r1760689981),
392b77d58a91049a155f3390ec16941a848aa766 and another commit
d9806ffe4e4d26de9c01f6b8ac0deae169b1d88d on top of it had already been released
in 19.1.0.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108671
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
