kadircet added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/XRefs.cpp:733 + else + Init->printPretty(ValueOS, nullptr, Policy); + } ---------------- sammccall wrote: > why not print the non-evaluated init if it's dependent? not-necessary anymore, since we only generate value if it can be evaluated. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:956 + }}, + // FIXME: We should use TypeLoc instead of Decl to extract the concrete + // value. ---------------- sammccall wrote: > Hmm, actually I'm not sure whether this is TypeLoc vs Decl here. Rather this > should be a DeclRefExpr to the VarDecl (result) in the *expanded* > CXXRecordDecl. > > This suggests that maybe the isValueDependent check isn't quite right - the > initializer expression is value dependent as spelled, but in the > instantiation it's resolved. Not sure if this is fixable. What happens if you > comment out the check? yes, and the problem lies in the IndexingAPI, inside `handleDeclOccurence` implicit instantiations are resolved into templated decls. therefore we lose the template params :/ we can't call expression evaluator on value dependent expressions, there is an assertion in the beginning of EvaluateAsRvalue. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:981 + HI.NamespaceScope = ""; + HI.Value = "&\"1234\"[0]"; + }}, ---------------- sammccall wrote: > whoa, that's... weird. But fine, I think. > > (It would be nice to elide the `&[]` if the index is zero, or maybe print as > `"1234" + 2` etc) do you think it is worth changing that in printpretty (either the defaults or via some `PrintingPolicy` option)? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63330/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63330 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
