Summary:
Code completion in clang is actually a mix of two features:
- Code completion is a familiar feature. Results are exposed via the
CodeCompleteConsumer::ProcessCodeCompleteResults callback.
- Signature help figures out if the current expression is an argument of
some function call and shows corresponding signatures if so.
Results are exposed via CodeCompleteConsumer::ProcessOverloadCandidates.
This patch refactors the implementation to untangle those two from each
other and makes some naming tweaks to avoid confusion when reading the
code.
The refactoring is required for signature help fixes, see D51038.
The only intended behavior change is the order of callbacks.
ProcessOverloadCandidates is now called before ProcessCodeCompleteResults.
Reviewers: sammccall, kadircet
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51782
llvm-svn: 341660
Summary:
Adjusted PrintingPolicy inside code completion to avoid printing some
redundant name qualifiers.
Before this change, typedefs that were written unqualified in source
code were printed with qualifiers in completion. For example, in the
following code
struct foo {
typedef int type;
type method();
};
completion item for `method` had return type of `foo::type`, even
though the original code used `type` without qualifiers.
After this change, the completion item has return type `type`, as
originally written in the source code.
Note that this change does not suppress qualifiers written by the
user. For example, in the following code
typedef int type;
struct foo {
typedef int type;
::type method(foo::type);
};
completion item for `method` has return type of `::type` and
parameter type of `foo::type`, as originally written in the source
code.
Reviewers: arphaman, bkramer, klimek
Reviewed By: arphaman
Subscribers: mgorny, eraman, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38538
llvm-svn: 317677
Various tests had sprung up over the years which had --check-prefix=ABC on the
RUN line, but "CHECK-ABC:" later on. This happened to work before, but was
strictly incorrect. FileCheck is getting stricter soon though.
Patch by Ron Ofir.
llvm-svn: 188174
That bug concerned the well-formedness of code such as (&ovl)(a, b,
c). GCC rejects the code, while EDG accepts it. On further study of the
standard, I see no support for EDG's position: in particular, C++
[over.over] does not list this as a context where we can take the
address of an overloaded function, C++ [over.call.func] does not
reference the address-of operator at any point, and C++ [expr.call]
claims that the function argument in a call is either a function
lvalue or a pointer-to-function; (&ovl) is neither.
llvm-svn: 118620
while we're completing in the middle of a function call), also produce
"ordinary" name results that show what can be typed at that point.
llvm-svn: 100558
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
that there is one more argument (the one following the comma) and make
the candidate non-viable if the function cannot accept any argument in
that position.
llvm-svn: 82625
results for other, textual completion. For call completion, we now
produce enough information to show the function call argument that we
are currently on.
llvm-svn: 82592
-code-completion-at=filename:line:column
which performs code completion at the specified location by truncating
the file at that position and enabling code completion. This approach
makes it possible to run multiple tests from a single test file, and
gives a more natural command-line interface.
llvm-svn: 82571
opening parentheses and after each comma. We gather the set of visible
overloaded functions, perform "partial" overloading based on the set
of arguments that we have thus far, and return the still-viable
results sorted by the likelihood that they will be the best candidate.
Most of the changes in this patch are a refactoring of the overloading
routines for a function call, since we needed to separate out the
notion of building an overload set (common to code-completion and
normal semantic analysis) and then what to do with that overload
set. As part of this change, I've pushed explicit template arguments
into a few more subroutines.
There is still much more work to do in this area. Function templates
won't be handled well (unless we happen to deduce all of the template
arguments before we hit the completion point), nor will overloaded
function-call operators or calls to member functions.
llvm-svn: 82549
Ilya Biryukov