ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdUnit.cpp:68
+ if (const auto *TD = dyn_cast<T>(D))
+ return TD->getTemplateSpecializationKind() == TSK_ImplicitInstantiation;
+ return false;
----------------
hokein wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > We also want to skip `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration` and
> > `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition` here.
> > This covers cases like (not sure which one of the two enum values we get,
> > though):
> > ```
> > template <class T>
> > int foo(T) { ... }
> >
> > template int foo(int); // we'd rather not traverse these, highlightings
> > will run into the same problems.
> > ```
> >
> > Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to `isImplicitInstatiation(D)
> > == !isExplicitInstantion(D)`, where `isExplicitInstantiation` is taken from
> > `CodeComplete.cpp`. (If we ignore `TSK_Undeclared`, which, I believe,
> > should never be encountered in decls passed to HandleTopLevelDecl).
> >
> > Please extract the helper from code complete and this one into a separate
> > file (e.g. `clangd/AST.h`) and possibly implement one through the other
> > Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to isImplicitInstatiation(D)
> > == !isExplicitInstantion(D),
>
> I think there is a typo here, I believe you mean `isImplicitInstantiation(D)
> == !isExplicitSpecialization(D) ` (in CodeComplete.cpp, it checks whether a
> Decl is an explicit **specialization**).
Yes, there's a typo thanks!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
