hokein added a comment. Thanks, I like the idea of marking missing-include refs.
I haven't read the code yet, and below are all my findings when I played with the demo html (some of them are unrelated to the current patch, just want to dump all): 1. size_t shows duplicated entries, line 465 2. we are missing refs in some using declarations (line 31, line32), but line 33 does have a link which seems weird 3. UI related: - it would be nice to highlight the whole line, if user clicks the line link from the shown-up panel; - for `Included path/to/header.h`, I think adding the `""`/`<>` around the spelling string will be nicer; - for main-file symbols, showing (`Header ASTTests.cpp`) is suboptimal, but I don't have better solution; 4. The handling of std symbols seems inconsistent: - click on a vector `push_back` will give the mapping `vector` header; - click on the type `std::vector` will give the `iosfwd` header; 5. I was confused why the type `Annotation` has the `Included` file, but not the method call `.code()`, since both shown-up panel are showing `Annotations.h` header, then I realized that the `code` is from the base class `llvm::Annotation`. This brings up a policy question (Not sure it has been discussed before): If we have already included the header of a subclass, and we have some base-class method calls via the subclass object, do we need to insert the header of the base class? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138219/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138219 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
