================
@@ -1,14 +1,42 @@
struct A {
- void foo(this A self, int arg);
+ void foo(this auto&& self, int arg);
+ void bar(this A self, int arg);
};
-int main() {
+int func1() {
A a {};
a.
}
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -cc1 -fsyntax-only -code-completion-at=%s:%(line-2):5
-std=c++23 %s | FileCheck %s
-// CHECK: COMPLETION: A : A::
-// CHECK-NEXT: COMPLETION: foo : [#void#]foo(<#int arg#>)
-// CHECK-NEXT: COMPLETION: operator= : [#A &#]operator=(<#const A &#>)
-// CHECK-NEXT: COMPLETION: operator= : [#A &#]operator=(<#A &&#>)
-// CHECK-NEXT: COMPLETION: ~A : [#void#]~A()
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -code-completion-at=%s:%(line-2):5 -std=c++23
%s | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-CC1 %s
+// CHECK-CC1: COMPLETION: A : A::
+// CHECK-NEXT-CC1: COMPLETION: bar : [#void#]bar(<#int arg#>)
+// CHECK-NEXT-CC1: COMPLETION: foo : [#void#]foo(<#int arg#>)
+// CHECK-NEXT-CC1: COMPLETION: operator= : [#A &#]operator=(<#const A &#>)
+// CHECK-NEXT-CC1: COMPLETION: operator= : [#A &#]operator=(<#A &&#>)
+// CHECK-NEXT-CC1: COMPLETION: ~A : [#void#]~A()
+
+struct B {
+ template <typename T>
+ void foo(this T&& self, int arg);
+};
+
+int func2() {
+ B b {};
+ b.foo();
+}
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -code-completion-at=%s:%(line-2):9 -std=c++23
%s | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-CC2 %s
+// CHECK-CC2: OVERLOAD: [#void#]foo(int arg)
----------------
HighCommander4 wrote:
It may be possible with
[`CHECK-NOT`](https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-check-not-directive),
but to be honest I wouldn't bother trying to express any non-trivial logic in
this test suite. The clangd unit test has coverage for this (it will start
failing if there are multiple overloads due to our use of `ElementsAre()`.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146649
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
