to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
The new guideline is to qualify with 'llvm::' explicitly both in
'.h' and '.cpp' files. This simplifies moving the code between
header and source files and is easier to keep consistent.
llvm-svn: 350531
Standardize on the most common namespace setup in our *.cpp files:
using namespace llvm;
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
void foo(StringRef) { ... }
And remove redundant llvm:: qualifiers. (Except for cases like
make_unique where this causes problems with std:: and ADL).
This choice is pretty arbitrary, but some broad consistency is nice.
This is going to conflict with everything. Sorry :-/
Squash the other configurations:
A)
using namespace llvm;
using namespace clang;
using namespace clangd;
void clangd::foo(StringRef);
This is in some of the older files. (It prevents accidentally defining a
new function instead of one in the header file, for what that's worth).
B)
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
void foo(llvm::StringRef) { ... }
This is fine, but in practice the using directive often gets added over time.
C)
namespace clang {
namespace clangd {
using namespace llvm; // inside the namespace
This was pretty common, but is a bit misleading: name lookup preferrs
clang::clangd::foo > clang::foo > llvm:: foo (no matter where the using
directive is).
llvm-svn: 344850
Summary:
LSP is using Line & column as symbol position, clangd needs to transfer file
offset to Line & column when sending results back to LSP client, which is a high
cost, especially for finding workspace symbol -- we have to read the file
content from disk (if it isn't loaded in memory).
Saving these information in the index will make the clangd life eaiser.
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: klimek, ilya-biryukov, jkorous-apple, ioeric, MaskRay, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45513
llvm-svn: 329997
Summary:
To implement incremental document syncing, we want to verify that the
ranges provided by the front-end are valid. Currently, positionToOffset
deals with invalid Positions by returning 0 or Code.size(), which are
two valid offsets. Instead, return an llvm:Expected<size_t> with an
error if the position is invalid.
According to the LSP, if the character value exceeds the number of
characters of the given line, it should default back to the end of the
line. It makes sense in some contexts to have this behavior, and does
not in other contexts. The AllowColumnsBeyondLineLength parameter
allows to decide what to do in that case, default back to the end of the
line, or return an error.
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: klimek, ilya-biryukov, jkorous-apple, ioeric, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44673
llvm-svn: 328100
Summary:
For symbols defined inside macros:
* use expansion location, if the symbol is formed via macro concatenation.
* use spelling location, otherwise.
This will fix some symbols that have ill-format location (especial invalid filepath).
Reviewers: ioeric
Reviewed By: ioeric
Subscribers: klimek, ilya-biryukov, jkorous-apple, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42575
llvm-svn: 323867
Summary:
The goal here is again to make it easier to read and write the tests.
I've extracted `parseTextMarker` from CodeCompleteTests into an `Annotations`
class, adding features to it:
- as well as points `^s` it allows ranges `[[...]]`
- multiple points and ranges are supported
- points and ranges may be named: `$name^` and `$name[[...]]`
These features are used for the xrefs tests. This also paves the way for
replacing the lit diagnostics.test with more readable unit tests, using named
ranges.
Alternative considered: `TestSelectionRange` in clang-refactor/TestSupport
Main problems were:
- delimiting the end of ranges is awkward, requiring counting
- comment syntax is long and at least as cryptic for most cases
- no separate syntax for point vs range, which keeps xrefs tests concise
- Still need to convert to Position everywhere
- Still need helpers for common case of expecting exactly one point/range
(I'll probably promote the extra `PrintTo`s from some of the core Protocol types
into `operator<<` in `Protocol.h` itself in a separate, prior patch...)
Reviewers: ioeric
Subscribers: klimek, mgorny, ilya-biryukov, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41432
llvm-svn: 321184
Chandler Carruth