RemoveParentheses removes parentheses in macro call, resulting in , to no longer be escaped.

[JVApen]

Clang format with the option RemoveParentheses on MultipleParentheses removes the parentheses in the snippet below.

MOCK_METHOD((int), func, ((std::map<int, int> )), (override));

becomes:

MOCK_METHOD((int), func, (std::map<int, int> ), (override));

With the parentheses, std::map<int, int> is considered a single value for the macro. Without it, it becomes the values std::map<int and int>, both which are not a valid type.

I understand that clang-format is unable to know if this is a macro or a function call. The only thing that would give it away is fact that types are used instead of values. As such, we'll most likely need some option in the config file which indicates that a specific name maps to a macro.
Alternatively, it could detect the pattern < ... , ... >.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-format

Author: None (JVApen)

Clang format with the option `RemoveParentheses` on `MultipleParentheses` removes the parentheses in the snippet below. ```` MOCK_METHOD((int), func, ((std::map<int, int> )), (override)); ```` becomes: ```` MOCK_METHOD((int), func, (std::map<int, int> ), (override)); ```` With the parentheses, `std::map<int, int>` is considered a single value for the macro. Without it, it becomes the values `std::map<int` and `int>`, both which are not a valid type.

I understand that clang-format is unable to know if this is a macro or a function call. The only thing that would give it away is fact that types are used instead of values. As such, we'll most likely need some option in the config file which indicates that a specific name maps to a macro.
Alternatively, it could detect the pattern < ... , ... >.

[owenca]

What's the macro definition of MOCK_METHOD?

[JVApen]

https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/3983f67e32fb3e9294487b9d4f9586efa6e5d088/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-function-mocker.h#L112

I don't understand the details of this Macro magic. Though since gmock is commonly used, I expect other users to encounter the same issue.

[owenca]

Looks like a duplicate of #68354. I can make RemoveParentheses always skip macro calls (all caps identifier followed by a tok::l_paren) if that's what people want. WDYT @HazardyKnusperkeks @mydeveloperday @rymiel ?

[JVApen]

From my perspective, skipping this for all macro-like calls seems overkill. I've only encountered it on this one macro.
Reading #68354 I do see a difference. In that one, I'd claim the macro is at fault for not putting it's values in (), while here, the () mean that , does not mark the next argument.

I'd be inclined to advocate for an option like FunctionMacros modeled after AttributeMacros, ForEachMacros ... Or even something similar as WhiteSpaceSensitiveMacros.

[HazardyKnusperkeks]

As I said in #68354, I do think it shouldn't touch macro calls at all.

From my perspective, skipping this for all macro-like calls seems overkill. I've only encountered it on this one macro. Reading #68354 I do see a difference. In that one, I'd claim the macro is at fault for not putting it's values in (), while here, the () mean that , does not mark the next argument.

The same here. One set of parentheses are kept, so the call to MOCK_METHOD gets std::map<int, int> as one argument, something must happen after that.

I'd be inclined to advocate for an option like FunctionMacros modeled after AttributeMacros, ForEachMacros ... Or even something similar as WhiteSpaceSensitiveMacros.

That would also be an acceptable solution.

I understand that clang-format is unable to know if this is a macro or a function call. The only thing that would give it away is fact that types are used instead of values. As such, we'll most likely need some option in the config file which indicates that a specific name maps to a macro. Alternatively, it could detect the pattern < ... , ... >.

Here you use some known types, but it should work regardless of the used types/values, so hardcoding the built-in types is not a good idea. And the pattern of multiple template parameters is also no indication, since we have variable templates.

So in summary, either don't touch possible macro calls, or add an option to state which are macros, that shouldn't be tempered with.

[owenca]

Clang format with the option RemoveParentheses on MultipleParentheses removes the parentheses in the snippet below.

MOCK_METHOD((int), func, ((std::map<int, int> )), (override));

becomes:

MOCK_METHOD((int), func, (std::map<int, int> ), (override));

Actually, it becomes MOCK_METHOD(int, func, (std::map<int, int>), override);.

With the parentheses, std::map<int, int> is considered a single value for the macro. Without it, it becomes the values std::map<int and int>, both which are not a valid type.

There still is a pair of parentheses left. Can you show us the compilation failure on Compiler Explorer?

[JVApen]

https://compiler-explorer.com/z/voModfxxq