daiyousei-qz added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/ClangdTests.cpp:1343 #undef CMDMACRO $inactive3[[#ifdef CMDMACRO int inactiveInt2; ---------------- hokein wrote: > While this patch is an improvement, I wonder we should move it further. > > Has been thinking about it more, we seem to have some inconsistent behavior > on highlighting the `#if`, `#else`, `#endif` lines: > > - in `$inactive1` case, the `#endif` is marked as inactive (IMO, the > highlighting in the editor is confusing, it looks like we're missing a match > `endif`, thus I prefer to mark it as active to correspond to the active `#if` > branch); > - in `$inactive3` case, the line `#elif PREAMBLEMACRO > 0` is marked as > inactive, this is inconsistent with `$inactive1` case; > > I think it would be nice to have a consistent model. One approach is to > always consider `#if`, `#elif`, `#endif`, `#endif` lines active (in the > implementation side, this would mean we always use the line range > [skipp_range.start.line+1, skipp_range.end.line - 1]). > > What do you think about this? > > +1. My perspective is that C++ source code is actually a meta-language (preprocessor) that describes generation of C++ language code. That is, `#if`, `#else`, `#endif` and .etc are always in a sense "executed" to generate the actual code. So they shouldn't be marked as inactive. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151190/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151190 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
