hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdUnit.cpp:68
+ if (const auto *TD = dyn_cast<T>(D))
+ return TD->getTemplateSpecializationKind() == TSK_ImplicitInstantiation;
+ return false;
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> We also want to skip `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration` and
> `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition` here.
> This covers cases like (not sure which one of the two enum values we get,
> though):
> ```
> template <class T>
> int foo(T) { ... }
>
> template int foo(int); // we'd rather not traverse these, highlightings will
> run into the same problems.
> ```
>
> Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to `isImplicitInstatiation(D) ==
> !isExplicitInstantion(D)`, where `isExplicitInstantiation` is taken from
> `CodeComplete.cpp`. (If we ignore `TSK_Undeclared`, which, I believe, should
> never be encountered in decls passed to HandleTopLevelDecl).
>
> Please extract the helper from code complete and this one into a separate
> file (e.g. `clangd/AST.h`) and possibly implement one through the other
> Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to isImplicitInstatiation(D) ==
> !isExplicitInstantion(D),
I think there is a typo here, I believe you mean `isImplicitInstantiation(D) ==
!isExplicitSpecialization(D) ` (in CodeComplete.cpp, it checks whether a Decl
is an explicit **specialization**).
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:219
+ R"cpp(
+ class $Class[[Foo]] {
+ public:
----------------
instead adding a highlighting test, could we add this testcase to
`ClangdUnitTests.cpp` instead?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
