sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/AST.cpp:434
+ for (AttributedTypeLoc ATL = *ATLPtr; !ATL.isNull();
+ ATL = ATL.getNextTypeLoc().getAs<AttributedTypeLoc>())
+ Result.push_back(ATL.getAttr());
----------------
hokein wrote:
> this looks like not safe, `getNextTypeLoc()` may return a null TypeLoc.
I don't think it can - an AttributedType always modifies a real type.
I've added an assert.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/ASTTests.cpp:233
+ };
+ ASSERT_THAT(DeclAttrs("X"), Each(implicitAttr()));
+ ASSERT_THAT(DeclAttrs("Y"), Contains(attrKind(attr::WarnUnusedResult)));
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sorry, I'm not familiar with attributes, what is an implicit attr? It is
> unclear to me why there is an attr for `class X`, the source code doesn't
> have any attribute label for X (the same question for f and a)
Right, implicit attributes are when there's nothing written in the source ,but
something else modifies the semantics in a way that clang authors decided to
model as an attribute (e.g. because semantics match that of an explicit
attribute).
I'm not familiar with many examples either, but a couple:
- when targeting windows, top-level classes appear to have an implicit "type
visibility" attribute that I guess models the difference between default
unix/windows symbol visibility.
- Aaron Ballman gave an example of `[[interrupt(...)]]` which also adds an
implicit `[[used]]` attribute.
The windows example was why I assert there are no explicit attributes, instead
of that there are none at all. I've added a comment.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89785/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
