ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdUnit.cpp:68
+ if (const auto *TD = dyn_cast<T>(D))
+ return TD->getTemplateSpecializationKind() == TSK_ImplicitInstantiation;
+ return false;
----------------
jvikstrom wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > > We also want to skip `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration` and
> > > > `TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition` here.
> > > > This covers cases like (not sure which one of the two enum values we
> > > > get, though):
> > > > ```
> > > > template <class T>
> > > > int foo(T) { ... }
> > > >
> > > > template int foo(int); // we'd rather not traverse these, highlightings
> > > > will run into the same problems.
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to
> > > > `isImplicitInstatiation(D) == !isExplicitInstantion(D)`, where
> > > > `isExplicitInstantiation` is taken from `CodeComplete.cpp`. (If we
> > > > ignore `TSK_Undeclared`, which, I believe, should never be encountered
> > > > in decls passed to HandleTopLevelDecl).
> > > >
> > > > Please extract the helper from code complete and this one into a
> > > > separate file (e.g. `clangd/AST.h`) and possibly implement one through
> > > > the other
> > > > Semantics I'm describing are roughly similar to
> > > > isImplicitInstatiation(D) == !isExplicitInstantion(D),
> > >
> > > I think there is a typo here, I believe you mean
> > > `isImplicitInstantiation(D) == !isExplicitSpecialization(D) ` (in
> > > CodeComplete.cpp, it checks whether a Decl is an explicit
> > > **specialization**).
> > Yes, there's a typo thanks!
> Still want me to move this and the helper from CodeComplete to `AST.h` as it
> isn't used anywhere else? (esp. when we can't implement them through of each
> other)
Yes, it's better to share this code between `codeComplete` and `ClangdUnit`. It
might pop up in more places and it's not trivial.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdUnit.cpp:82
continue;
+ if (isImplicitTemplateInstantiation<FunctionDecl>(D) ||
+ isImplicitTemplateInstantiation<CXXRecordDecl>(D) ||
----------------
Could we expose the following non-template function instead?
```
bool isImplicitTemplateInstantiation(NamedDecl *);
```
So that the users don't need to specify which `Decl` they are interested in (I
believe there's no use for it anyway)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65510
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
