sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Headers.cpp:185
+ // The entries will be the same, but canonicalizing to find out is expensive!
+ if (SearchPathCanonical.empty()) {
+ for (const auto &Dir :
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> nit: early exit
I don't think it makes sense here, this isn't "the remaining case" for this
function, it's just one of many things this function does
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp:1250
const SourceManager &SM = AST.getSourceManager();
- const auto &ConvertedMainFileIncludes =
- convertIncludes(SM, AST.getIncludeStructure().MainFileIncludes);
- const auto &HoveredInclude = convertIncludes(SM, llvm::ArrayRef{Inc});
+ const auto &Converted = convertIncludes(AST);
llvm::DenseSet<include_cleaner::Symbol> UsedSymbols;
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> oops, looks like we were getting away with some dangling references.
> the reference here is wrong, `convertIncludes` returns a value type. can you
> fix that while here?
this isn't dangling, it's lifetime extension.
Can change it for style if you like, though?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/IncludeCleanerTests.cpp:486-491
+ include_cleaner::walkUsed(AST.getLocalTopLevelDecls(), {},
+ AST.getPragmaIncludes(), AST.getSourceManager(),
+ [&](const include_cleaner::SymbolReference &Ref,
+ llvm::ArrayRef<include_cleaner::Header> P) {
+ Providers[llvm::to_string(Ref.Target)] = P.vec();
+ });
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> i don't think making this test rely on `walkUsed` is a good idea. what about
> just populating the providers directly, like:
>
> ```
> EXPECT_TRUE(isPreferredProvider(Decl, Includes,
> {include_cleaner::Header{"decl.h"}, include_cleaner::Header{"def.h"}}));
> ```
>
> and verifying we're recognizing preferred providers purely on that ordering ?
That would be a strict unit test, but I think it's too easy to lose track of
how this idea of "preferred" relates to the code.
For example, when writing this test, I expected `Y` to match the includes for
both `Decl` and `Def`, because they're intuitively both "best matches" and we
do allow multiple includes to match.
But of course we force the *providers* to be ranked, so really ~only multiple
includes of the *same* header will be accepted as all-preferred.
This wrinkle seems worth recording, and totally disappears if we make the test
abstract by describing a provider list directly.
(Can do it though if that's what you do prefer)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155878/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155878
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
