kadircet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Index/complete-block-property-assignment.m:71
+// RUN: c-index-test -code-completion-at=%s:54:15 %s | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO1 %s
+// CHECK-NO1: ObjCPropertyDecl:{ResultType int}{TypedText foo} (35)
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > Any idea why behavior changed in that case?
> Looked at it more thoroughly now...
> So we're now showing both the signature help and the completion, right?
> If that the case, LG, but can we include the rest of completion items from
> CHECK-N0?
>
> Maybe also add a comment that the last item is from overload set completion,
> rather than the ordinary code completion? (To avoid confusion and make it
> clear why we need an extra check there)
Yes, c-index-test binary collects results from both ProcessOverloadCandidate
and ProcessCodeCompleteResults. Therefore they are merged. Adding the same set
of results on the above is not enough for that particular case, due to the
clever nature of CodeCompleteOverloadResult at
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp#L4439.
It doesn't just try to tell you the overloads of that particular function but
also tries to complete the current argument. Therefore the list simply gets
huge by expansion of all the macros and other stuff.
But when looking into it I found out I was checking for wrong return values
fixing that with the new diff.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51038
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
