Summary:
Previously, when we rename a macro, we get an error message of "there is
no symbol found".
This patch improves the message of this case (as we don't support macros).
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, mgrang, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63922
llvm-svn: 364735
Summary:
Failing case:
```
#include "foo.h"
void fo^o() {}
```
getRenameDecl() returns the decl of the symbol under the cursor (which is
in the current main file), instead, we use the canonical decl to determine
whether a symbol is declared in #included header.
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63872
llvm-svn: 364537
Summary:
Also fix a small bug -- the extra argument "-xc++" doesn't overwrite the
language if the argument is present after the file name in the compiler
command.
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63759
llvm-svn: 364392
Summary:
Previously, we performed rename for all kinds of symbols (local, global).
This patch narrows the scope by only renaming symbols not being used
outside of the main file (with index asisitance). Renaming global
symbols is not supported at the moment (return an error).
Reviewers: sammccall
Subscribers: ilya-biryukov, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63426
llvm-svn: 364283
Summary:
This introduces a few new concepts:
- tweaks have an Intent (they don't all advertise as refactorings)
- tweaks may produce messages (for ShowMessage notification). Generalized
Replacements -> Effect.
- tweaks (and other features) may be hidden (clangd -hidden-features flag).
We may choose to promote these one day. I'm not sure they're worth their own
feature flags though.
Verified it in vim-clangd (not yet open source), curious if the UI is ok in VSCode.
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: mgorny, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62538
llvm-svn: 363680
Enough to build the clangd binaries, but this is still missing build
files for:
- fuzzer
- indexer
- index/dex/dexp
- benchmarks
- xpc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59899
llvm-svn: 357182
Summary:
This reduces the per-check implementation burden and redundant work.
It also makes checks range-aware by default (treating the commonAncestor
as if it were a point selection should be good baseline behavior).
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57570
llvm-svn: 352876
Summary:
The code tweaks are an implementation of mini-refactorings exposed
via the LSP code actions. They run in two stages:
- Stage 1. Decides whether the action is available to the user and
collects all the information required to finish the action.
Should be cheap, since this will run over all the actions known to
clangd on each textDocument/codeAction request from the client.
- Stage 2. Uses information from stage 1 to produce the actual edits
that the code action should perform. This stage can be expensive and
will only run if the user chooses to perform the specified action in
the UI.
One unfortunate consequence of this change is increased latency of
processing the textDocument/codeAction requests, which now wait for an
AST. However, we cannot avoid this with what we have available in the LSP
today.
Reviewers: kadircet, ioeric, hokein, sammccall
Reviewed By: sammccall
Subscribers: mgrang, mgorny, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56267
llvm-svn: 352494
Haojian Wu