sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
(I don't see a new snapshot but LG with the traverseNode change)
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SelectionTests.cpp:272-283
+ R"cpp(
+ struct Foo {};
+ struct Bar : [[private Fo^o]] {};
+ )cpp",
+ "CXXBaseSpecifier",
+ },
+ {
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > njames93 wrote:
> > > Is this good behaviour, or should Foo selection resolve as a
> > > RecordTypeLoc, That is the behaviour previously observed for these 2
> > > cases. And instead have CXXBaseSpecifier as its parent selection?
> > Yes, this should be a typeloc with the CXXBaseSpecifier as its parent,
> > unless there's a really compelling reason to make an exception.
> >
> > Two main reasons:
> > - it matches RecursiveASTVisitor's idea of the tree shape, which people
> > mostly understand. If we diverge, it'll be a special case we need to
> > remember and so potentially a source of bugs.
> > - This allows code that handles types generically to work with fewer
> > special cases.
> > (I do like the FindTarget change though - it seems reasonable to allow
> > go-to-def on e.g. the `public` keyword)
> > It still preserves flexibility if we want to handle types as
> > base-specifiers specially (we can examine the parent)
> OK, funnily enough that change to find target was to fix renaming when the
> recordtypeloc was removed from the selection. That change will be redundant
> if i fix that, but do you still want it in here?
Up to you, but I'd lean towards keeping it and adding a FindTarget test for
`struct S : ^private T` or so, which is the visible change.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ASTTypeTraits.cpp:196
return SourceRange(C->getBeginLoc(), C->getEndLoc());
+ if (const auto *CBS = get<CXXBaseSpecifier>())
+ return CBS->getSourceRange();
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > nice, thanks!
> > We should probably have a test for this (in ASTTypeTraitsTest.cpp there's a
> > simple pattern to follow for sourcerange)
> Not really trivial as there is no matcher for `cxxBaseSpecifier`. Annoyingly
> its my fault there isn't one.
Oh, I've been down this rabbithole recently... clangd support for attrs ->
DynTypedNode support for Attr -> matchers for use in tests -> matchers get
complicated...
Let's not block on this (and I need to revive my attr patch that got too big...)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95231/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95231
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
