massberg marked 2 inline comments as done.
massberg added a comment.
Thanks for the comments, I have added an additional test to FindTargetTest. See
also my other comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/HoverTests.cpp:4051
+TEST(Hover, RewrittenBinaryOperatorSpaceshipMassberg) {
+ Annotations T(R"cpp(
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > no need to sign your work :-)
> can you add this to HoverTest__All instead? That way we test all details of
> the hover card
Upps, sorry.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/HoverTests.cpp:4051
+TEST(Hover, RewrittenBinaryOperatorSpaceshipMassberg) {
+ Annotations T(R"cpp(
----------------
massberg wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > no need to sign your work :-)
> > can you add this to HoverTest__All instead? That way we test all details of
> > the hover card
> Upps, sorry.
> can you add this to HoverTest__All instead? That way we test all details of
> the hover card
The (Hover, All) test tests with `std=c++17` while this test tests c++20
features.
We could add an additional field with the version to the struct in the (Hover,
All) test.
Or add a (Hover, All_Cpp20) test for testing C++20 (what is probably not worth
at the moment with just one test requiring C++20).
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/HoverTests.cpp:4079
+ EXPECT_EQ(HI->Type,
+ HoverInfo::PrintedType("bool (const Foo &) const noexcept"));
+ EXPECT_EQ(HI->Documentation, "Foo spaceship");
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> if we're describing this as the spaceship operator, then the type looks wrong
I have added a test checking the whole definition.
Actually the following is happening here:
The `!=` operator isn't explicitly defined, so the binary operator is rewritten
to `!(Foo(1) == Foo(2)`,
i.e. we are now using the `==` operator.
However, the `==` operator is also not explicitly defined, but there is a
defaulted spaceship operator.
Thus the `==` operator is implicitly defined through the `<=>` operator.
So the type and definition here are from the implicitly defined `==` operator,
while the original source of it is the `<=>` operator.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153331/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153331
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
