omtcyfz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Analysis/CloneDetection.cpp:436
@@ +435,3 @@
+ if (IsInMacro) {
+ Signature.Complexity = 0;
+ }
----------------
omtcyfz wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > omtcyfz wrote:
> > > Do I understand correctly that a code generated by a macro doesn't affect
> > > "complexity" at all then?
> > >
> > > ```
> > > TEST_F(QueryParserTest, Complete) {
> > > std::vector<llvm::LineEditor::Completion> Comps =
> > > QueryParser::complete("", 0, QS);
> > > ASSERT_EQ(6u, Comps.size());
> > > EXPECT_EQ("help ", Comps[0].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("help", Comps[0].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("let ", Comps[1].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("let", Comps[1].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("match ", Comps[2].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("match", Comps[2].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("set ", Comps[3].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("set", Comps[3].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("unlet ", Comps[4].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("unlet", Comps[4].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("quit", Comps[5].DisplayText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("quit ", Comps[5].TypedText);
> > >
> > > Comps = QueryParser::complete("set o", 5, QS);
> > > ASSERT_EQ(1u, Comps.size());
> > > EXPECT_EQ("utput ", Comps[0].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("output", Comps[0].DisplayText);
> > >
> > > Comps = QueryParser::complete("match while", 11, QS);
> > > ASSERT_EQ(1u, Comps.size());
> > > EXPECT_EQ("Stmt(", Comps[0].TypedText);
> > > EXPECT_EQ("Matcher<Stmt> whileStmt(Matcher<WhileStmt>...)",
> > > Comps[0].DisplayText);
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > This is an actual piece of code from
> > > `extra/unittests/clang-query/QueryParserTest.cpp`. Yes, it is a test, but
> > > it still is a nice example of how many macros can be found in code
> > > (especially if we are talking about pure C or some weird C++).
> > >
> > > Thus, I think it is reasonable to treat macro invocation as a
> > > `1`-"complexity" node.
> > This "0" is not for the macro itself, but for the statements into which it
> > expands. Macro itself is not a statement. If we put "1" here, it would
> > produce a lot more complexity than you want.
> >
> > That said, it's a good idea to treat every macro as a "complexity-1"
> > statement, just need to figure out how to implement that correctly :)
> >
> > Perhaps scan the source range of the sequence for how many different macro
> > expansions are included, and add that number to complexity(?)
> > This "0" is not for the macro itself, but for the statements into which it
> > expands. Macro itself is not a statement. If we put "1" here, it would
> > produce a lot more complexity than you want.
>
> Sure, I understand that, this is why I didn't suggest putting `1` there.
>
> > Perhaps scan the source range of the sequence for how many different macro
> > expansions are included, and add that number to complexity(?)
>
> Yes, this is exactly the solution that would work. Since macros aren't in the
> AST we'd need to get through SourceRange anyway.
Though, it has to be optimized in order to prevent parsing a SourceLocation
multiple times.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23316
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
