Summary:
The example that was broken before (^ designates completion points):
class Foo {
Foo() : fie^ld^() {} // no completions were provided here.
int field;
};
To fix it we don't cut off lexing after an identifier followed by code
completion token is lexed. Instead we skip the rest of identifier and
continue lexing.
This is consistent with behavior of completion when completion token is
right before the identifier.
Reviewers: sammccall, aaron.ballman, bkramer, sepavloff, arphaman, rsmith
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44932
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@330833 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Use better heuristics to detect if a '{' might be the start of the constructor body
or not. Especially when there is a completion token.
Fix the test 'test/CodeCompletion/ctor-initializer.cpp ' when clang defaults to c++11
The problem was is how we recover invalid code in the ctor-init part as we skip the
function body. In particular, we want to know if a '{' is the begining of the body.
In C++03, we always consider it as the beginng of the body. The problem was that in
C++11, it may be the start of an initializer, so we skip over it, causing further
parse errors later. (It is important that we are able to parse correctly the rest
of the class definition, to know what are the class member, for example)
This commit is improving the heuristics to decide if the '{' is starting a function
body. The rules are the following: If we are not in a template argument, and that the
previous tokens are not an identifier, or a >, then it is much more likely to be the
function body. We verify that further by checking the token after the matching '}'
The commit also fix the behavior when there is a code_completion token in the
ctor-initializers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21502
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@285883 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
- In functions with try { } catch { }, only the try block would be
skipped, not the catch blocks
- The template functions would still be parsed.
- The initializers within a constructor would still be parsed.
- The inline functions within class would still be stored, only to be
discared later.
- Invalid code with try would assert (as in "int foo() try assert_here")
This attempt to do even less while skipping function bodies.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20821
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@272963 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Ilya Biryukov