nridge marked an inline comment as done.
nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/XRefs.cpp:147
}
+ while ((N = N->Parent)) {
+ if (N->ASTNode.get<CallExpr>() || N->ASTNode.get<ImplicitCastExpr>() ||
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> nridge wrote:
> > This part is a super hacky way to keep case #9 in `LocateSymbol.Ambiguous`
> > passing while not regressing other tests.
> >
> > In that case, the selection tree looks like this:
> >
> > ```
> > DeclStmt Foo foox = Foo("asdf");
> >
> > VarDecl Foo foox = Foo("asdf")
> > ExprWithCleanups Foo("asdf")
> > CXXConstructExpr Foo("asdf")
> > MaterializeTemporaryExpr Foo("asdf")
> > CXXFunctionalCastExpr Foo("asdf")
> > .RecordTypeLoc Foo
> > ```
> >
> > The common ancestor is the `RecordTypeLoc`, but we'd like to find the
> > constructor referred to by the `CXXConstructExpr` as a target as well. To
> > achieve that, my current code walks up the parent tree until we encounter a
> > `CXXConstructExpr`, but aborts the walk if certain node types are
> > encountered to avoid certain other scenarios where we have a
> > `CXXConstructExpr` ancestor.
> >
> > This is almost certainly wrong, as there are likely many other cases where
> > we have a `CXXConstructExpr` ancestor but don't want to find the
> > constructor as a target which are not being handled correctly.
> >
> > Is there a better way to identify the syntactic form at issue in this
> > testcase?
> This case is gross, but as above I think it would be OK to have the targeting
> work like:
> ```
> Foo("asdf")
> FFFCSSSSSSC
>
> F -> RecordTypeLoc -> CXXRecordDecl Foo
> C -> CXXConstructExpr -> CXXConstructorDecl Foo(string)
> S -> StringLiteral -> nullptr
> ```
> WDYT?
In your description, the target nodes are written underneath the characters.
However, our input here is a cursor position (in between two characters).
Should we target the `CXXConstructExpr` if the cursor is just before the
parenthesis, just after, or both?
(I am aware that `SelectionTree` can take a range as well as a position, so
from the point of view of that API, "only when the selection is a range
covering the parenthesis" is an option as well. However, this would not benefit
go-to-definition, for which the request as specified in LSP only contains a
position, not a range.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69237/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69237
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
