kadircet accepted this revision.
kadircet added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Thanks, LGTM! As you mentioned I believe `std::move` is common enough to 
deserve the special casing.



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/SymbolCollector.cpp:563
       if (auto Header = getIncludeHeader(QName, Entry.second)) {
+        // Hack: there are two std::move() overloads from different headers.
+        // CanonicalIncludes returns the common one-arg one from <utility>.
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > i think this should live inside `CanonicalIncludes`. What about changing 
> > `mapHeader` to take in an `llvm::Optional<size_t> NumParams` or 
> > `llvm::Optional<llvm::StringRef> Signature` ?
> > 
> > That way we can actually get rid of the ambiguity caused by all of the 
> > overloads. I am not sure if number of parameters is always going to be 
> > enough tho so `Signature` might be a safer bet with some canonicalization 
> > so that we can match the version in cppreference.
> > 
> > (I would prefer the solution above, but I am also fine with moving this 
> > into `SymbolCollector::getIncludeHeader` with a FIXME.)
> That's kind of the point of this patch, I think this one special case isn't 
> worth making that library more complicated.
> 
> Would also be happy with just always suggesting <utility>, or never 
> suggesting anything, though.
Makes sense, I was suggesting `SymbolCollector::getIncludeHeader` rather than 
`SymbolCollector::finish` to keep the logic in here less complicated. But I am 
fine if you don't want to make changes to the singature. (It is unfortunate 
that `getIncludeHeader` is a private member instead of a free helper in here 
anyways.)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D88885/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D88885

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to