aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Decl.h:2331
+ /// Attempt to compute an informative source range covering the
+ /// function parameters. This omits the ellipsis of a variadic function.
+ SourceRange getParametersSourceRange() const;
----------------
nicolas wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Why does this omit the ellipsis? It's part of the parameter list and it
> > seems like a strange design decision to leave that out of the source range
> > for the parameter list.
> I haven't found a correct way to access the position of the ellipsis. There
> is no corresponding `ParmVarDecl` in `ParamInfo`.
> Did I miss something? It doesn't seem to be easily accessible.
I don't think you've missed anything; I think we need to track/dig out that
information in order for this API to be usefully correct. I don't see a lot of
value in getting a source range that's sometimes wrong.
I would recommend seeing if you can go back to the function type location
information as-needed to figure out where the ellipsis is and include it in the
range here.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:676
+}
+
TEST(CXXMethodDecl, CXXMethodDeclWithThrowSpecification) {
----------------
nicolas wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I'd like to see tests that include an ellipsis, as well as tests that use
> > the preprocessor in creative ways. e.g.,
> > ```
> > #define FOO int a, int b
> >
> > void func(FOO);
> > void bar(float f, FOO, float g);
> > void baz(FOO, float f);
> > void quux(float f, FOO);
> > ```
> > Also, tests for member functions (both static and instance functions) and
> > parameters with leading attributes would be useful. e.g.,
> > ```
> > void func([[]] int *i);
> > ```
> Source locations with macros always looked inconsistent to me. For example:
> ```
> #define RET int
> RET f(void);
> ```
>
> Here, `getReturnTypeSourceRange` returns `<input.cc:2:1
> <Spelling=input.cc:1:13>-input.cc:2:1 <Spelling=input.cc:1:13>>`, where I
> would expect (and I could be wrong) `<input.cc:2:1
> <Spelling=input.cc:1:13>-input.cc:2:3 <Spelling=input.cc:1:16>>`
>
> The same thing happens with `getParametersSourceRange`. Should I test the
> current behavior?
>
> I added the other tests you requested.
I'd test current behavior.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63276/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63276
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
