kadircet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:831
+ };
return HI;
}},
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > Could you add another test with even weirder types where we fail to show
> > > the signature? To make sure we don't break when reaching the limitations
> > > of the chosen approach and document what those limitations are.
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > > ```
> > > auto a = [](int a) { return 10; };
> > > auto *b = &a;
> > > auto *c = &b;
> > > ```
> > >
> > > We would fail to show the signature here, but it's totally ok to ignore
> > > it.
> > added cases, and changed code(a lot simpler now) to generate signatures for
> > those cases as well.
> Here's an example when the new approach falls short too:
>
> ```
> auto a = [](int) { return 10; }
> std::function<void(decltype(a) x)> b;
> ```
>
> In general, are we ok with loosing all the information about the type that we
> drop?
> One level of references and pointers seemed ok, dropping more is a bit more
> cheesy..
>
> At the same time, either case is **so** rare that we probably don't care.
are you talking about hovering over `x` ? I don't think AST contains
information regarding that one.
for a code like this:
```
auto foo = []() { return 5; };
template <class T>
class Cls {};
Cls<void(decltype(foo) bar)> X;
```
This is the AST dump for variable X:
```
`-VarDecl 0x2b0e808 <line:6:1, col:30> col:30 X 'Cls<void
(decltype(foo))>':'Cls<void ((lambda at a.cc:1:12))>' callinit
`-CXXConstructExpr 0x2b12e80 <col:30> 'Cls<void (decltype(foo))>':'Cls<void
((lambda at a.cc:1:12))>' 'void () noexcept'
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62814/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62814
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
