iannisdezwart accepted this revision. iannisdezwart added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D119077#3300271 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119077#3300271>, @nridge wrote: > I haven't looked at the patch in detail, but one high level question: have > you considered the possibility of adding these highlightings during the > findExplicitReferences > <https://searchfox.org/llvm/rev/bad1b7fbb0fec532f097ac59805562020f895962/clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp#794> > phase, rather than in `CollectExtraHighlightings`? (I haven't thought > through whether that would work, just wondering if you have. The reason this > is worth asking is that if we can get `findExplicitReferences` to handle > overloaded operator calls, other clangd features that use > `findExplicitReferences` would benefit from knowing about such calls as well.) I have in fact looked at the possibility of adding the code into `findExplicitReferences`, but I figured it would be more suitable to add it into `CollectExtraHighlightings`, because it is easier to distinguish declarations from references. In `findExplicitReferences` the declaration will be traversed multiple times, so it would be a pain to check if it had already been traversed. I found it was relatively easy to write code that would work in `CollectExtraHighlightings`, and I also don't know for sure if it's even possible to handle all cases in `findExplicitReferences`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119077/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119077 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits