nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:157
+resolveConflict(ArrayRef<HighlightingToken> Tokens) {
+ if (Tokens.size() != 2)
+ return llvm::None;
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> why a limit of 2, vs a loop?
I'm not aware of a scenario where we'd get more than two conflicting
highlightings, except when macros are involved in which case we don't have a
good way to disambiguate anyways.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:211
NonConflicting.push_back(TokRef.front());
+ else if (auto Resolved = resolveConflict(Conflicting))
+ NonConflicting.push_back(*Resolved);
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> out of curiosity, *why* is the same token being highlighted as dependentname
> and resolved? Is it being traversed twice?
It's for the reason you described in [this
comment](https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/297#issuecomment-593736036):
the resolved highlighting comes from `findExplicitReferences()`, and the
dependent one form `CollectExtraHighlightings`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76896/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76896
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
