================
@@ -1296,6 +1296,21 @@ TEST_F(TokenAnnotatorTest, 
UnderstandsRequiresClausesAndConcepts) {
   Tokens = annotate("bool x = t && requires(Foo<C1 || C2> x) { x.foo(); };");
   ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 25u) << Tokens;
   EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresExpression);
+
+  // Second function definition is required due to lookahead
+  Tokens = annotate("void f() & requires(n == 1) {}\nvoid g();");
+  ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 19u) << Tokens;
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[4], tok::amp, TT_PointerOrReference);
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresClause);
+
+  Tokens = annotate("void f() & requires(n || h) {}\nvoid g();");
+  ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 19u) << Tokens;
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[4], tok::amp, TT_PointerOrReference);
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresClause);
+
+  Tokens = annotate("bool x = t && requires(F<n == 1> x) { x.foo(); };");
+  ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 25u) << Tokens;
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[5], tok::kw_requires, TT_RequiresExpression);
----------------
owenca wrote:

Delete? Otherwise, we should check that the `&&` is annotated correctly.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110942
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to