klimek accepted this revision. klimek added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clangd/XRefs.cpp:559 + //- auto& i = 1; + bool VisitDeclaratorDecl(DeclaratorDecl *D) { + if (!D->getTypeSourceInfo() || ---------------- klimek wrote: > malaperle wrote: > > klimek wrote: > > > sammccall wrote: > > > > malaperle wrote: > > > > > sammccall wrote: > > > > > > out of curiosity, why not implement `VisitTypeLoc` and handle all > > > > > > the cases where it turns out to be `auto` etc? > > > > > > Even for `auto&` I'd expect the inner `auto` to have a `TypeLoc` > > > > > > you could visit, saving the trouble of unwrapping. > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm probably wrong about all this, I don't know the AST well. But > > > > > > I'd like to learn!) > > > > > From what I saw, there are actually two different AutoType* for each > > > > > textual "auto". The AutoType* containing the deduced type does not > > > > > get visited via a typeloc. It's not entirely clear to me why since I > > > > > don't know the AST well either. I was thinking maybe the first is > > > > > created when the type is not deduced yet and later on, then the rest > > > > > of the function or expression is parsed, a second one with the actual > > > > > type deduced is created. If I look at the code paths where they are > > > > > created, it seems like this is roughly what's happening. The first > > > > > one is created when the declarator is parsed (no deduced type yet) > > > > > and the second is created when the expression of the initializer (or > > > > > return statement) is evaluated and the type is then deduced. The > > > > > visitor only visits the first one's typeloc. I don't think I'm > > > > > knowledgeable enough to say whether or not that's a bug but it seems > > > > > on purpose that it is modelled this way. Although it would be much > > > > > nicer to only have to visit typelocs... > > > > > The AutoType* containing the deduced type does not get visited via a > > > > > typeloc > > > > Ah, OK. > > > > Could you add a high level comment (maybe on the class) saying this is > > > > the reason for the implementation? Otherwise as a reader I'll think > > > > "this seems unneccesarily complicated" but not understand why. > > > > > > > > @klimek Can you shed any light on this? > > > Can't you go from AutoTypeLoc -> AutoType -> getDeducedType()? > > The visitor doesn't visit the AutoTypeLoc that has the deduced type. In > > fact, there are two AutoType* instances. I'm not sure that's is a bug that > > there are two AutoType*, or if not visiting both AutoTypeLoc is a bug...or > > neither. > +Richard Smith: > > This is weird. If I just create a minimal example: > int f() { > auto i = f(); > return i; > } > > I only get the undeduced auto type - Richard, in which cases are auto-typed > being deduced? The AST dump doens't give an indication that there was an auto > involved at all. Is this the famous syntactic vs. smenatic form problem? Do > we have a backlink between the AutoTypeLoc and the deduced type somewhere? Given that Richard is known to have ~1 month ping times now and then I think it's fine to land this with a FIXME above to figure out how to represent this better in the AST. I'd still say it's a missing feature in the AST :) Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D48159 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits