Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Shouldn't the constructors that need std::move also ensure the <utility> header is also included, or at least transitively included. We don't want to generate constructors that wont compile.
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/MemberwiseConstructor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
26–28 | // e.g. given `struct S{ int x; unique_ptr<double> y; };`, produces: // struct S { // int x; unique_ptr<double> y; // S(int x, unique_ptr<double> y) : x(x), y(std::move(y)) {} // }; or just // e.g. given `struct S{ int x; unique_ptr<double> y; };`, produces: // S(int x, unique_ptr<double> y) : x(x), y(std::move(y)) {} The tweak does not remove the members, as currently suggested by the comment | |
49 | do we also need to exclude anonymous class declarations here? (Not sure if those are also modelled as CXXRecordDecl in the clang AST...) | |
133 | Is this visitor able to look through using MyType = int; and typedef? |
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/MemberwiseConstructor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
49 | On 2nd thought: To trigger this tweak, I click on the class name, and since anonymous structs don't have class names, I think the tweak can't even be triggered. Still probably worth a check here, just to be sure. Or at least an assert+ comment in the code |
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/MemberwiseConstructor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
26–28 | I know. Let's fix the comment :) |
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/MemberwiseConstructor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
38 | Define constructor (first letter uppercase) |
Can we add this tweak as the default "fix-it" action for
Class '...' does not declare any constructor to initialize its non-modifiable members
on structs like
struct X { int& a; }
?
Not easy to do in this patch, we don't have a good way to associate fixes with clang diagnostics yet.
It's a useful idea but needs a little design I guess.
(-Wswitch kind of works by always marking the tweak as a "fix", which semantically doesn't work here)
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/MemberwiseConstructor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
49 | Good catch, it's also possible to trigger the code action on the class's braces. | |
133 | We call getCanonicalType() before visiting. | |
203 | Yeah, if it's default constructible but *not movable* then it's probably reasonable. (The default constructor should be public, but actually this applies to all constructors, so I added this condition everywhere) | |
211 | I'm not sure that adding an option solves a problem, so I'd rather not add one yet. In most cases, the programmer should be deciding whether the constructor is explicit or not on a case-by-case basis. Having a configurable adds complexity without relieving significant burden. We do have to have some default, and explicit for single-arg constructors is IMO a better default (recommended by cppcoreguidelines, google style guide) |
LGTM (for whatever that's worth - still pretty unexperienced with the clang AST)
Thanks for picking this up again! Looking forward to have this available in clangd! :)
Not easy to do in this patch, we don't have a good way to associate fixes with clang diagnostics yet.
Is this a clangd-specific implementation issue or a general short-coming in the LSP protocol?
Thanks!
It's a clangd thing, tweaks and diagnostics just don't know about each other at all (diagnostics come fully-formed out of the clang internals, tweaks are an isolated traversal of the AST (possibly a different version).
We can't really change the way the diagnostics are generated, so we'd have to store them and do some pattern matching.
(Clangd does have many fixes that are tightly integrated with diagnostics, these are implemented inside clang. Something as big as generating a constructor is out of scope for clang)
I've added this just as a FIXME for now, because we're missing "framework" support for adding includes and composing separate edits in tweaks.
I think this is probably only a small obstacle in practice, it seems pretty rare to write std::move and need to add the #include for it to compile.
or just
The tweak does not remove the members, as currently suggested by the comment