tom-anders added a comment. In D137040#3907497 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137040#3907497>, @nridge wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! > > The test looks good to me. > > As for the fix, I wonder if it would make sense to implement it in the Sema > layer rather than in clangd. For example, we could give > `clang::CodeCompletionResult` a new flag > <https://searchfox.org/llvm/rev/f97639ce13754e78e26f8d7f564830ddfe4f727c/clang/include/clang/Sema/CodeCompleteConsumer.h#851> > called something like `CanBeCall`, which, for a completion result that > refers to a function, is set to true (by the code that creates the > CodeCompletionResult, in SemaCodeComplete.cpp) if the use of the function may > be a call, and false if it cannot. > > Then clangd can check this flag, and clear the snippet suffix (or even > better, not build it in the first place) if the value is false. > > I think this approach could have a couple of advantages: > > 1. By placing the logic into libSema, other consumers of the Sema completion > layer, besides clangd, could benefit from it as well. (A couple of other > consumers that I'm aware of are libclang > <https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/group__CINDEX__CODE__COMPLET.html> and cling > <https://root.cern/cling/>.) > 2. Because the logic now resides inside `Sema` itself, if we make > enhancements to the heuristics for computing `CanBeCall` that require > additional state (besides `CurContext`), we can just use them in place rather > than having to propagate them into places like clangd's > `CodeCompletionBuilder`. > > What do you think? That indeed sounds like a better solution. I haven't looked much into SemaCodeComplete.cpp up to now, but I'll take a look and try to implement the heuristic over there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137040/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137040 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
