================
@@ -7867,15 +7865,16 @@ void Sema::checkUnusedDeclAttributes(Declarator &D) {
void Sema::DiagnoseUnknownAttribute(const ParsedAttr &AL) {
std::string NormalizedFullName = '\'' + AL.getNormalizedFullName() + '\'';
+ SourceRange NR = AL.getNormalizedRange();
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
Re: `ParsedAttr`/vs `CommonInfo`: Ack, that makes sense.
Re fixit only with no scope: I think that is somewhat sensible. I think it is
at least an improvement.
You're right that we'd have to some pretty sizable changes to represent the
'scope' via using to the AST, and I don't have a great idea how that should
look. We'd either have to do a 'normalization' for the group to make our
'fixit' work (that is, we end up converting usings into explicits or vice
versa?), OR represent them.
That said, we COULD fixit just the identifier where it is, right? Since we
already know the scope and are correcting within the scope, we can't just
change the current 'identifier' to what we're suggesting as a fixit? IF we
limited it that way, it would 'inherit' whatever sort of scoping was already
there perhaps?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141305
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
