nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/InlayHints.cpp:520
auto ExprStartLoc = SM.getTopMacroCallerLoc(E->getBeginLoc());
- auto Decomposed = SM.getDecomposedLoc(ExprStartLoc);
+ auto Decomposed = SM.getDecomposedExpansionLoc(ExprStartLoc);
if (Decomposed.first != MainFileID)
----------------
I admit I struggle with this spelling/expansion loc stuff. But having spent a
bit of time reading the implementations of these functions, would I be correct
to say that another, perhaps easier to follow, way to express the same thing
would be:
```
auto Decomposed = SM.getDecomposedLoc(SM.getFileLoc(E->getBeginLoc()));
```
?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/InlayHints.cpp:521
+ auto Decomposed = SM.getDecomposedExpansionLoc(ExprStartLoc);
if (Decomposed.first != MainFileID)
return false;
----------------
zyounan wrote:
> stupid question: I was suspicious with this check that when would
> `Decomposed.first` not being the same as MainFileID? Should the "top-caller"
> of the macro always be in main file? I didn't find a case that differs,
> except when `getDecomposedLoc` provides wrong FileID.
I tried adding an assertion in this early-return branch, and it tripped in
`ParameterHints.IncludeAtNonGlobalScope`.
The code there is:
```
Annotations FooInc(R"cpp(
void bar() { foo(42); }
)cpp");
Annotations FooCC(R"cpp(
struct S {
void foo(int param);
#include "foo.inc"
};
)cpp");
```
so I guess the decomposed loc there is a file loc, but not in the main file
(but rather in `foo.inc`).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144074/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D144074
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
