Fix assertion in google-explicit-constructor check when the constructor is

defined in a macro.

Summary:
We shouldn't suggest replacements in macros anyway, as we can't see all
usages of the macro and ensure the replacement is safe for all of them.

Reviewers: klimek

Reviewed By: klimek

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3611

llvm-svn: 207987

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/GoogleModuleTest.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/GoogleModuleTest.cpp
index d986d3bcb04..89e47407c98 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/GoogleModuleTest.cpp
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/GoogleModuleTest.cpp
@@ -47,6 +47,15 @@ TEST(ExplicitConstructorCheckTest, RemoveExplicit) {
                 "class C { explicit/*asdf*/  C(const C&, int i = 0); };"));
 }
 
+TEST(ExplicitConstructorCheckTest, RemoveExplicitWithMacros) {
+  EXPECT_EQ(
+      "#define A(T) class T##Bar { explicit T##Bar(const T##Bar &b) {} };\n"
+      "A(Foo);",
+      runCheckOnCode<ExplicitConstructorCheck>(
+          "#define A(T) class T##Bar { explicit T##Bar(const T##Bar &b) {} };\n"
+          "A(Foo);"));
+}
+
 } // namespace test
 } // namespace tidy
 } // namespace clang