[libclang] Only mark CXCursors for explicit attributes with a type

[erikjv]

Summary

All attributes have a source range associated with it. However, implicit
attributes are added by the compiler, and not added because the user
wrote something in the input. So no token type should be set to
CXCursor_*Attr.

The problem was visible when a class gets marked by e.g.
MSInheritanceAttr, which has the full CXXRecordDecl's range as its
own range. The effect of marking that range as CXCursor_UnexposedAttr
was that all cursors for the record decl, including all child decls,
would become CXCursor_UnexposedAttr.

[erikjv]

Added more context to the diff

[ilya-biryukov]

I'm not actually familiar with CXCursor, so can't really help with reviewing this.

[nik]

Ping

[klimek]

lg

[erikjv]

Committed as r330692

test/Index/annotate-tokens-unexposed.cpp

+// RUN: c-index-test -test-annotate-tokens=%s:1:1:16:1 %s -target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc | FileCheck %s
+class Foo
+{
+public:
+    void step(int v);
+    Foo();
+};
+
+void bar()
+{
+    // Introduce a MSInheritanceAttr node on the CXXRecordDecl for Foo. The
+    // existance of this attribute should not mark all cursors for tokens in
+    // Foo as UnexposedAttr.
+    &Foo::step;
+}
+
+Foo::Foo()
+{}
+
+// CHECK-NOT: UnexposedAttr=

tools/libclang/CIndex.cpp

if (D->isCompleteDefinition()) {
     }
   }
 
   return VisitTagDecl(D);
 }
 
 bool CursorVisitor::VisitAttributes(Decl *D) {
   for (const auto *I : D->attrs())
-    if (Visit(MakeCXCursor(I, D, TU)))
+    if (!I->isImplicit() && Visit(MakeCXCursor(I, D, TU)))
         return true;
 
   return false;
 }
 
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 // Data-recursive visitor methods.
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//