| Issue |
169824
|
| Summary |
[clangd] Implicit destructors not recorded as reference
|
| Labels |
new issue
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
b10902118
|
Currently clangd’s call hierarchy and reference don’t include destructors, making the analysis incomplete, for example: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/157876
While there is no actual position for destructor, I think it is reasonable to be at the same location of the corresponding constructor because it is decided there. I am new to clang AST but I think the information can be infered from it. Just found https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/166110. Currently I am looking into `clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/SymbolCollector.cpp`, not sure whether in the right direction.
But I am also unsure whether adding destructor will break existing rules. Need help.
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
