[PATCH] D70489: [clangd] Add xref for macro to static index.

[UTKARSH SAXENA via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

usaxena95 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/SymbolCollector.cpp:532
+      const IdentifierInfo *II = MacroRef.first;
+      if (const auto *MI = PP->getMacroDefinition(II).getMacroInfo())
+        if (auto ID = getSymbolID(II->getName(), MI, PP->getSourceManager())) {
----------------
hokein wrote:
> usaxena95 wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > I'm curious of the behavior `getMacroDefinition` -- from its implementation, if `II` doesn't have macro definition, it just returns empty.
> > > 
> > > could you check whether it works at the below case (or even with a same macro name defined/undef multiple times)?
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > #define abc 1
> > > #undef abc
> > > 
> > > // not at the EOF, I guess, II for `abc` doesn't have macro definition at this point because it has been undef?
> > > ```
> > I had a FIXME in the tests for this case. I see why there was no macro definition at that point. I guess it would be better to keep the symbol id  instead of the II.
> sorry, I didn't see a FIXME in the test, am I missing anything? Maybe move the FIXME to here?
Instead of storing the II, I now store the SymbolID. So we do not need to call `getMacroDefinition` at the end of TU.
Therefore the problem with undef and multiple declaration of macros was resolved and I removed the FIXME too. 
There is a test of the form
```
  // Macro defined multiple times.
  #define $ud1[[UD]] 1
  int ud_1 = $ud1[[UD]];
  #undef UD

  #define $ud2[[UD]] 2
  int ud_2 = $ud2[[UD]];
  #undef UD
```


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/SymbolCollector.h:76
     /// macro even if this is true.
     bool CollectMacro = false;
     /// Collect symbols local to main-files, such as static functions
----------------
hokein wrote:
> usaxena95 wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > This option is for macro symbols, I'd not use it for collecting macro references. I think the whether to collect macro references is judged by `RefFilter` and `RefsInHeaders`. 
> > I see. `RefFilter` sounds right but I am don't think `RefsInHeaders` is the correct one. It just tells whether to collect references from the included header (i.e. outside mainfile) or not.
> > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for macro references in such case.
> > WDYT ?
> I don't think we need an extra flag merely for macro references. macro references should be treated in the same way of decl references.
Got it. Done.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D70489/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D70489