sammccall accepted this revision.
sammccall added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:211
NonConflicting.push_back(TokRef.front());
+ else if (auto Resolved = resolveConflict(Conflicting))
+ NonConflicting.push_back(*Resolved);
----------------
nridge wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > out of curiosity, *why* is the same token being highlighted as
> > dependentname and resolved? Is it being traversed twice?
> It's for the reason you described in [this
> comment](https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/297#issuecomment-593736036):
> the resolved highlighting comes from `findExplicitReferences()`, and the
> dependent one form `CollectExtraHighlightings`.
Oh yeah :-)
Can we add a comment somewhere about this case? e.g. on resolveConflict (this
happens when...)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76896/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76896
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
