dgoldman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/CollectMacros.cpp:42
+ if (isInsideMainFile(Loc, SM)) {
+ Position Start = sourceLocToPosition(SM, Loc);
+ Position End = {Start.line + 1, 0};
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> are we fine with these annotations spanning `#pragma [[mark XX]]` rather than
> the whole line or just `XX` ?
I think it's okay for now, I added a FIXME which I'll address in a follow up
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/FindTarget.cpp:655
llvm::iterator_range<const SourceLocation *> Locations) {
- for (const auto &P : llvm::zip(Protocols, Locations)) {
Refs.push_back(ReferenceLoc{NestedNameSpecifierLoc(),
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> this change does not look relevant, can you please revert?
Reverted, will send out another change to fix the warning
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ParsedAST.cpp:441
+ if (Preamble)
+ Marks = Preamble->Marks;
+ Clang->getPreprocessor().addPPCallbacks(
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> We are not patching marks for stale preambles, which I believe is fine but
> worth a FIXME. If you are interested please take a look at
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/clangd/Preamble.cpp#L427,
> it should be fairly easy to handle movements of `#pragma mark`s in preamble
> section.
Added a FIXME. Does something similar need to be done for MainFileMacros?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105904/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105904
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
