hokein marked an inline comment as done.
hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/XRefs.cpp:389
llvm::sort(References, [](const Reference &L, const Reference &R) {
- return std::tie(L.Loc, L.CanonicalTarget, L.Role) <
- std::tie(R.Loc, R.CanonicalTarget, R.Role);
+ return L.Loc < R.Loc;
});
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > What are the elements `References` for the problematic case?
> > >
> > > If we have duplicate elements, then `sort()` would now give us one of the
> > > items. Which exact `Decl` we're gonna end up seeing is not well-defined,
> > > i.e. it's non-deterministic.
> > > What are the elements References for the problematic case?
> >
> > The testcase is using declarations (see the existing test) -- we will get 3
> > refs on `using ::fo^o`, each ref has a different decl.
> >
> > ```
> > void [[foo]](int);
> > void [[foo]](double);
> >
> > namespace ns {
> > using ::[[fo^o]];
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > > If we have duplicate elements, then sort() would now give us one of the
> > > items. Which exact Decl we're gonna end up seeing is not well-defined,
> > > i.e. it's non-deterministic.
> >
> > I think we could make it deterministic, but only return one refs, WDYT?
> >
> >
> To make sure I understand the problem: we used to get 4 references in total:
> - 2 references to the functions (`foo(int)` and `foo(double)`)
> - 2 references pointing to the using declaration, e.g. the `using ::[foo]]`
>
> After this patch we would remove the duplicate `using ::[[foo]]` from the
> results and get only 3 references as a result.
>
> Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66349/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66349
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
