sammccall planned changes to this revision.
sammccall added a comment.
Thanks, I know what to do next!
While I have you here, any thoughts on future patches:
> Only the bare name is completed, with no args.
> For args to be useful we need arg names. These *are* in the tablegen but
> not currently emitted in usable form, so left this as future work.
How do you feel about this plan:
- add an `ArrayRef<const char*>` to `ParsedAttrInfo` for this purpose? (Or a
null-terminated `char**` if we're worried about sizeof).
- It'd be populated by the names of the tablegen `Args`.
- If empty, completions render as now. If nonempty they render as `foo(bar,
baz)` where `bar` and `baz` are placeholders - just like function args but
without types.
> There's also no filtering by langopts: this is because currently the
> only way of checking is to try to produce diagnostics, which requires a
> valid ParsedAttr which is hard to get.
And for this, WDYT about making `diagLangOpts` non-virtual and moving the
attr-specific test into a `virtual bool supportsLangOpts()` function with no
side-effects?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp:4357
+ continue;
+ llvm::StringRef Name = S.NormalizedFullName;
+ if (Completion == AttributeCompletion::Scope) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Should we also add some special handling for attributes optionally
> > > starting with double underscores? e.g., `__attribute__((const))` and
> > > `__attribute__((__const__))`` are both equally useful to complete.
> > >
> > > Also, we should add some explicit testing for `omp::sequence` and
> > > `omp::directive` as those are handled very specially and won't appear in
> > > the parsed attribute map. I think the OpenMP code completion would be
> > > super useful, but can be handled in a follow-up if you want.
> > > Should we also add some special handling for attributes optionally
> > > starting with double underscores?
> >
> > I think so. Two questions:
> > - Do I understand right that this is "just" a matter of adding
> > leading/trailing `__` as a second option, for AS_GNU?
> > - are there similar rules for other syntaxes I've missed?
> >
> > Offering both seems potentially confusing for users who don't care
> > (especially in the case of const!). But I guess enough users will care
> > about macros. At least in clangd the underscore versions will get ranked
> > lower for having "internal" names though.
> >
> > FWIW The no-underscores version appears to be ~3x more common (87k vs 27k
> > hits in third-party code in google's repo). Among headers, no-underscores
> > is "only" 2x more common (40k vs 21k).
> >
> > ---
> >
> > > Also, we should add some explicit testing for omp::sequence and
> > > omp::directive as those are handled very specially and won't appear in
> > > the parsed attribute map.
> >
> > Yeah, I punted on these because it seems they will need special case logic,
> > I'll add some tests that they don't do anything.
> > Do I understand right that this is "just" a matter of adding
> > leading/trailing __ as a second option, for AS_GNU?
> > are there similar rules for other syntaxes I've missed?
>
> Clang supports GNU attributes in either `__attribute__((foo))` or
> `__attribute__((__foo__))` forms. So I'd say that autocompleting after the
> second `(` should either suggest attributes (preferred) or `__` (for the poor
> folks writing libraries). If the user wants to autocomplete after
> `__attribute__((__`, I think it should suggest `foo__` as the rest of the
> attribute name. (Basically, if the user looks like they want underscores,
> give them all the underscores.)
>
> Clang also supports `[[]]` attributes but with somewhat different rules. We
> support `[[gnu::attr]]`, `[[__gnu__::attr]]`, `[[gnu::__attr__]]`, and
> `[[__gnu__::__attr__]]` for GCC attributes. We support `[[clang::attr]]`,
> `[[_Clang::attr]]`, `[[clang::__attr__]]`, and `[[_Clang::__attr__]]` for
> Clang attributes. For vendors other than Clang and GCC, we don't support any
> additional underscores for either the scope or the attribute name. I would
> say that if the user asked for underscores for the vendor scope, they likely
> want the underscores for the attribute as well.
>
> I suppose there's a third case. That horrible `using` syntax that I've never
> really seen used in the wild. e.g., ``[[using clang: attr]``. We do support
> the underscore behavior there as well.
>
> > Offering both seems potentially confusing for users who don't care
> > (especially in the case of const!). But I guess enough users will care
> > about macros.
>
> Yeah, users who are writing portable libraries are far more likely to care
> than users writing typical application code.
> So I'd say that autocompleting after the second ( should either suggest
> attributes (preferred) or __ (for the poor folks writing libraries).
This is clever, unfortunately it doesn't really work for other reasons:
- LSP allows clients to "narrow down" results as an identifier is typed with
client-side filtering, and `_` is treated as an identifier character.
- clang's code completion similarly returns all matches and leaves
partial-identifier-filtering them to the CodeCompleteConsumer
I can't see a better plan than including both the underscore and non-underscore
versions, with the latter downranked. Doesn't seem *too* bad.
> Clang also supports [[]] attributes...
Yeah, I think what we should do here is pretend the scoped namespace contains
only the scoped attribute and vice versa:
- When we want qualified attributes, emit `gnu::attr` and `__gnu__::__attr__`
but no mixing
- When we want scopes (after `using`), emit `gnu` and `__gnu__`
- When we want unqualified attributes (after `ns::` or `using ns:`), emit
either `attr` or `__attr__` depending on the scope
> That horrible using syntax
I really don't understand why this is worthwhile. Maybe feature parity with
XMLNS? :-)
In any case, it happens to be easy to handle.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107696/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107696
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
