kadircet accepted this revision. kadircet added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
> Concretely, can you give an example of which node and what you'd want it to > point to? If it's just the single unqualified-name token, I agree and would > like to add it (as a separate patch). If it's the full range, I think that's > getSourceRange(). Is it something else? Yes I was talking about for the single unqualified name. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/FindTargetTests.cpp:49 + EXPECT_THAT(AST.getDiagnostics(), ::testing::IsEmpty()) << Code; + llvm::Annotations::Range R = A.llvm::Annotations::range(); + SelectionTree Selection(AST.getASTContext(), AST.getTokens(), R.Begin, ---------------- sammccall wrote: > kadircet wrote: > > can't you just call `A.range()` ? :D > > I hope it wasn't clangd that somehow code-completed this. > A.range() is an LSP Location (line/col pairs), offsets seem slightly more > convenient here. > > This is ugly though, using Annotations with SourceLocations seems > unneccesarily clunky. Ideas? > > (this reminds me, these test helpers need comments, added some) ah sorry somehow thought this was already an `llvm::Annotations`. You seem to be only using `Code` and `Base::range` and they are both coming from `llvm::Annotations` already. Any reason for not using it directly instead of `clangd::Annotations` ? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66751/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
