nridge added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/FindTargetTests.cpp:581 + + [[Fooable]] auto i = 42; + )cpp"; ---------------- sammccall wrote: > this is going to have the same behavior on the `auto` token, right? > > This is my main practical concern, that go-to-definition, hover, find-refs, > go-to-type etc on `auto` will now treat `Fooable` as their target. > > (That said, I'm not sure exactly how common it is for `auto` to be > constrained in a non-dependent context...) > That said, I'm not sure exactly how common it is for `auto` to be constrained > in a non-dependent context... I think it may be reasonably common. For example, in this [hello world example](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2300r7.html#example-hello-world) for the C++23 asynchronous programming proposal we have things like `scheduler auto` and `sender auto` (where `scheduler` and `sender` are concepts). So, do think we want `auto` linked to the concrete deduced type in situations like this, and only the concept name linked to the concept definition. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154853/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154853 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
