rnk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Lex/Lexer.cpp:3076-3077
case '\r':
+ if (CurPtr[0] != Char && (CurPtr[0] == '\n' || CurPtr[0] == '\r'))
+ Char = getAndAdvanceChar(CurPtr, Result);
// If we are inside a preprocessor directive and we see the end of line,
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > Should we only do this in the `\r` case? If I understand correctly, we're
> > basically saying, if this is a CR, and the next byte is an LF, advance one
> > more and do the pre-processor stuff.
> That is exactly what we're doing.
>
> I debated that personally, and am a bit on the fence. It seems a number of
> places like to treat a '\r\n' and a '\n\r' as the same thing, though it seems
> a little foolish to me. If you fall toward that opinion, I'll definitely
> change it, just say the word :)
The bug probably doesn't happen in the \n\r case, because don't we count '\n's
to compute our line numbers?
Anyway, yeah, I think we should make this specific to '\r'. In that case, we
peek one ahead, and if we see a simple '\n' byte, we advance one more so that
our line numbers stay correct.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37079
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
