nridge marked an inline comment as done.
nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/XRefs.cpp:139
+// that constructor. FIXME(nridge): this should probably be handled in
+// targetDecl() itself.
+const CXXConstructorDecl *findCalledConstructor(const SelectionTree::Node *N) {
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > nridge wrote:
> > > I would appreciate some tips on how we could handle this in
> > > `targetDecl()`. Please see more specific comments below.
> > My thinking is basically:
> > - C++ syntax is vague and doesn't give us great ways of referring directly
> > to constructors.
> > - there's value to simplicity, and I've found go-to-definition
> > additionally finding implicit nodes to be confusing as often as useful. I
> > think on balance and given the constraints of LSP, we should consider
> > dropping this and having implicit references be returned by find-refs but
> > not targetable by go-to-def/hover/etc. It's OK for simplicity of
> > implementation to be a concern here.
> > - the node that targets the constructor is the CXXConstructExpr. Treating
> > the VarDecl conditionally as a reference to the constructor, while clever,
> > seems like a hack. Ideally the fix is to make SelectionTree yield the
> > CXXConstructExpr, not to change TargetDecl.
> > - CXXConstructExpr is only sometimes implicit. SelectionTree should return
> > it for the parens in `Foo()` or `Foo x()`. And ideally for the equals in
> > `Foo x = {}`, though I think there's no CXXConstructExpr in the AST in that
> > case :-(
> > - When the AST modelling is bad (as it seems to be for some aspects
> > CXXConstructExpr) we should consider accepting some glitches and trying to
> > improve things in clang if they're important. Hacking around them will lead
> > to inconsistencies between different clangd features.
> >
> > The TL;DR is I think I'd be happy to drop this special case and try to make
> > SelectionTree surface CXXConstructExpr more often, even if it changes some
> > behavior.
> +1 to the idea of landing this and changing behavior.
> I don't think we're loosing much in terms of functionality and I personally
> like the new code much more.
FWIW, I do find being able to get from a variable declaration to the invoked
constructor to be very useful.
If the class has several constructors, there's no other easy way to determine
which one is being invoked (only other thing I can think of is to perform "find
references" on each constructor and see which one includes the variable
declaration as a reference, which is a lot more tedious), and I think that's an
important thing to be able to do (just like for named functions).
So I'd definitely like to keep this case working. However, I'd be fine with
only having the parens or braces target the constructor. (That's still slightly
annoying, as you have to place the cursor more precisely, and it also may not
be obvious to users, but at least there's a way to do it.) I'm also fine with
changing the behaviour for now, and deferring constructor targeting to a
follow-up, as there are other benefits this patch brings.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69237/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69237
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
