kadircet marked 4 inline comments as done.
kadircet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:819
)cpp",
[](HoverInfo &HI) {
HI.NamespaceScope = "";
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> I'm slightly nervous about the fact that "lambda" doesn't appear anywhere
> here.
>
> e.g. maybe the Type should be "<lambda> bool(int, bool)" or so?
> Many lambdas are not interchangeable with "plain" functions references.
I've added the textual info to type. I don't think it is useful enough to put
it as semantic info into the struct.
I believe it is rather a visual cue to the user, which seems pretty available
in the "Type" field.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:831
+ };
return HI;
}},
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> Could you add another test with even weirder types where we fail to show the
> signature? To make sure we don't break when reaching the limitations of the
> chosen approach and document what those limitations are.
>
> Something like:
> ```
> auto a = [](int a) { return 10; };
> auto *b = &a;
> auto *c = &b;
> ```
>
> We would fail to show the signature here, but it's totally ok to ignore it.
added cases, and changed code(a lot simpler now) to generate signatures for
those cases as well.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62814/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62814
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
