SelectionTree skips nodes inside macros #126
Labels
bug
Something isn't working
Comments
sureyeaah
changed the title
arichardson
pushed a commit
to arichardson/llvm-project
that referenced
this issue
Jan 17, 2020
Summary: The exclusive-claim model is successful at resolving conflicts over tokens between parent/child or siblings. However claims at the spelled-token level do the wrong thing for macro expansions, where siblings can be equally associated with the macro invocation. Moreover, any model that only uses the endpoints in a range can fail when a macro invocation occurs inside the node. To address this, we use the existing TokenBuffer in more depth. Claims are expressed in terms of expanded tokens, so there is no need to worry about macros, includes etc. Once we know which expanded tokens were claimed, they are mapped onto spelled tokens for hit-testing. This mapping is fairly flexible, currently the handling of macros is pretty simple (map macro args onto spellings, other macro expansions onto the macro name token). This mapping is in principle token-by-token for correctness (though there's some batching for performance). The aggregation of the selection enum is now more principled as we need to be able to aggregate several hit-test results together. For simplicity i removed the ability to determine selectedness of TUDecl. (That was originally implemented in 90a5bf92ff97b1, but doesn't seem to be very important or worth the complexity any longer). The expandedTokens(SourceLocation) helper could be added locally, but seems to make sense on TokenBuffer. Fixes clangd/clangd#202 Fixes clangd/clangd#126 Reviewers: hokein Subscribers: MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, usaxena95, cfe-commits, ilya-biryukov Tags: #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70512
shrouxm
pushed a commit
to sourcegraph/lsif-clang
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2020
Summary: The exclusive-claim model is successful at resolving conflicts over tokens between parent/child or siblings. However claims at the spelled-token level do the wrong thing for macro expansions, where siblings can be equally associated with the macro invocation. Moreover, any model that only uses the endpoints in a range can fail when a macro invocation occurs inside the node. To address this, we use the existing TokenBuffer in more depth. Claims are expressed in terms of expanded tokens, so there is no need to worry about macros, includes etc. Once we know which expanded tokens were claimed, they are mapped onto spelled tokens for hit-testing. This mapping is fairly flexible, currently the handling of macros is pretty simple (map macro args onto spellings, other macro expansions onto the macro name token). This mapping is in principle token-by-token for correctness (though there's some batching for performance). The aggregation of the selection enum is now more principled as we need to be able to aggregate several hit-test results together. For simplicity i removed the ability to determine selectedness of TUDecl. (That was originally implemented in 90a5bf92ff97b1, but doesn't seem to be very important or worth the complexity any longer). The expandedTokens(SourceLocation) helper could be added locally, but seems to make sense on TokenBuffer. Fixes clangd/clangd#202 Fixes clangd/clangd#126 Reviewers: hokein Subscribers: MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, usaxena95, cfe-commits, ilya-biryukov Tags: #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70512
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Selecting anything inside the macro argument just marks the FunctionDecl as partially selected.
We need to change how we claim ranges. The FunctionDecl inside the macro claims the entire macro which is why none of the nodes inside the body are selected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: