sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/DumpAST.cpp:233
return CCO->getConstructor()->getNameAsString();
+ if (const auto *CTE = dyn_cast<CXXThisExpr>(S)) {
+ bool Const = CTE->getType()->getPointeeType().isLocalConstQualified();
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> should we ensure we always return within the branch (as we do within the rest
> of the branches to make sure we don't accumulate details by mistake)? e.g:
> ```
> if(CXXThisExpr) {
> details = {}
> if (const) details += "const";
> if (implicit) details += "implicit";
> return join(",", details);
> }
> ```
Actually I was trying to *avoid* returning `""` in several places.
I think of these functions as a collection of special cases where we have
something to say - if we don't find anything, we fall off the end.
(`getDetail` for DeducedType is the other example)
Can change it if you think it's important though.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/DumpASTTests.cpp:79
{R"cpp(
-template <typename T> int root() {
- (void)root<unsigned>();
+namespace root {
+template <typename T> int tmpl() {
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> is this change intentional ?
Yeah, the problem is that I wanted the root in the new test to be a member
function, so I needed to switch from findDecl("root") to
findUnqualifiedDecl("root"). But that fails if there are two decls with that
name, as there were here: the primary template root<T> and the specialization
root<unsigned>. Thus the change to wrap the whole thing in a root namespace.
Maybe there's a neater way to solve this, I'm not sure it matters much.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91868/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91868
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
