sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/Rename.cpp:169
+// For renaming, we're only interested in foo's declaration, so drop the other
one
+void filterBaseUsingDecl(llvm::DenseSet<const NamedDecl *>& Decls) {
+ if (Decls.size() == 2) {
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > tom-anders wrote:
> > > I'm not really happy with the name here, open for suggestions
> > This only comes up when renaming the UsingDecl itself (else we reach the
> > UsingShadowDecl rather than this one).
> >
> > I think we should just unconditionally drop the UsingDecl from the list.
> > The target decls will be in the list, and we'll do the right thing (rename
> > one if unambiguous, error if there are multiple).
> I'm not sure it's right to handle BaseUsingDecl instead of UsingDecl here.
>
> The other case is UsingEnumDecl, and I don't see any reason to treat that as
> a non-renaming alias as opposed to a simple reference. It doesn't actually
> introduce an alias of the enum it names! (I see that we *are* treating it
> that way in FindTarget, but I guess we should just fix that instead).
>
> Certainly if we *are* deliberately handling UsingEnumDecl here we should have
> a testcase for it.
I sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D135506 to remove this behavior from FindTarget.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135489/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135489
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
