njames93 marked 2 inline comments as done.
njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/DefineOutline.cpp:220
+ assert(Attr->getLocation().isValid());
+ if (Attr->getLocation().isMacroID()) {
+ Errors = llvm::joinErrors(
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> njames93 wrote:
> > kadircet wrote:
> > > can you add some test cases for this branch ? In theory it should be ok
> > > to drop this if full expansion is just the attr, i.e.
> > >
> > > ```
> > > #define FNL final
> > > struct A { virtual void foo() FNL {} };
> > > ```
> > >
> > > but should possibly fail in :
> > > ```
> > > #define MACRO foo() final
> > > struct A { virtual void MACRO {} };
> > > ```
> > it's not a great idea refactoring functions with MACRO attributes, we can
> > never know if there are side effects based on different definitions due to
> > things like build configs.
> well that's definitely one way to go, but while designing this code action we
> decided user should know better and clangd currently provides this code
> action in cases involving macros, see `DefineOutlineTest.HandleMacros` and it
> would be inconsistent with rest of the behavior if it bailed out in half of
> the cases and kept working for the rest.
>
> Also this case is even safer than the rest, since it is only trying to drop
> those qualifiers and not duplicate them in the definition side.
Thanks for explaining that for me, I'll give it a go and see how the test cases
are handled
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/DefineOutline.cpp:244
+ bool Any = false;
+ // Clang allows duplicating virtual specifiers so check for multiple
+ // occurances.
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > again could you please add tests checking this case?
> sorry, i still don't see any cases with multiple virtual keywords.
Ah I thought you meant a test case just containing virtual which there is, I'll
get the second one added.
Should I even support multiple virtual decls, https://godbolt.org/z/kGbF22
clang treats this as a warning, but for gcc its an error.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75429/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75429
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
