[clang-format] Fix a regression of annotating PointerOrReference (#149039)

Fixes #149010

Author: owenca

clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp

@@ -2996,14 +2996,18 @@ class AnnotatingParser {
     const FormatToken *PrevToken = Tok.getPreviousNonComment();
     if (!PrevToken)
       return TT_UnaryOperator;
-    if (PrevToken->is(TT_TypeName))
+    if (PrevToken->isTypeName(LangOpts))
       return TT_PointerOrReference;
     if (PrevToken->isPlacementOperator() && Tok.is(tok::ampamp))
       return TT_BinaryOperator;
 
-    const FormatToken *NextToken = Tok.getNextNonComment();
+    auto *NextToken = Tok.getNextNonComment();
     if (!NextToken)
       return TT_PointerOrReference;
+    if (NextToken->is(tok::greater)) {
+      NextToken->setFinalizedType(TT_TemplateCloser);
+      return TT_PointerOrReference;
+    }
 
     if (InTemplateArgument && NextToken->is(tok::kw_noexcept))
       return TT_BinaryOperator;
@@ -3112,7 +3116,7 @@ class AnnotatingParser {
 
     // It's more likely that & represents operator& than an uninitialized
     // reference.
-    if (Tok.is(tok::amp) && PrevToken && PrevToken->Tok.isAnyIdentifier() &&
+    if (Tok.is(tok::amp) && PrevToken->Tok.isAnyIdentifier() &&
         IsChainedOperatorAmpOrMember(PrevToken->getPreviousNonComment()) &&
         NextToken && NextToken->Tok.isAnyIdentifier()) {
       if (auto NextNext = NextToken->getNextNonComment();

clang/unittests/Format/TokenAnnotatorTest.cpp

@@ -390,6 +390,10 @@ TEST_F(TokenAnnotatorTest, UnderstandsUsesOfStarAndAmp) {
   EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[20], tok::l_brace, TT_CompoundRequirementLBrace);
   EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[22], tok::star, TT_BinaryOperator);
 
+  Tokens = annotate("bool foo = requires { static_cast<Foo &&>(1); };");
+  ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 17u) << Tokens;
+  EXPECT_TOKEN(Tokens[8], tok::ampamp, TT_PointerOrReference);
+
   Tokens = annotate("return s.operator int *();");
   ASSERT_EQ(Tokens.size(), 10u) << Tokens;
   // Not TT_FunctionDeclarationName.