mirror of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
synced 2025-04-25 19:16:05 +00:00
50e1ad6ed2
D155499 fixed an issue with implicit continuations. The fixes included a
nested parenthesis check during definition of a macro which is then
carried over in the scanner state.
This leads to the following corner case to fail:
subroutine foo(a, d)
implicit none
integer :: a
integer :: d
! An implicit continuation won't be considered unless
! the definition of "bar" above is removed/commented
call sub(1,
2)
end subroutine foo
The definition of bar is indeed unbalanced but it is not even used in
the code, so it should not impact whether we apply implicit continuation
in the expansion of sub.
This change aims at addressing this issue by removing the balance check
and constraining a bit more when we consider implicit continuations:
only when we see a left parenthesis after a function-like macro, not a
object-like macro. In this case I think it is OK to (unconditionally)
implicitly continue to the next line in search of the corresponding
right parenthesis. This is, to my understanding, similar to what the C
preprocessor would do according to the description in [1].
[1] https://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20060626/
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D157414
18 lines
333 B
Fortran
18 lines
333 B
Fortran
! RUN: %flang -E %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
! Macro definitions with unbalanced parentheses should not affect
|
|
! implicit continuations.
|
|
subroutine foo(a, d)
|
|
implicit none
|
|
integer :: a
|
|
integer :: d
|
|
|
|
#define sub(x, y) foo2(x, y)
|
|
#define bar )
|
|
|
|
call sub(1,
|
|
2)
|
|
end subroutine foo
|
|
|
|
!CHECK: call foo2(1, 2)
|
|
!CHECK: end subroutine foo
|