This patch contains changes from
002d471a4a3cd8b429e4ca7c84fd54a642e50e4c, in
addition to a bug fix that added a virtual destructor to
`CompletionContextHandler`
The original changes in the orginal commit piggybacks on clang's
semantic modules to enable semantic completion. In particular, we use
`CodeCompletionContext` to differentiate two types of code completion.
We also
extract the relevant type information from it.
These newly added tests fail on AIX with error `LLVM ERROR: Incompatible object format!`. Disable them for now while we investigate.
Reviewed By: capfredf, shchenz
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D159213
Original commit message:
"
This patch enabled code completion for ClangREPL. The feature was built upon
three existing Clang components: a list completer for LineEditor, a
CompletionConsumer from SemaCodeCompletion, and the ASTUnit::codeComplete method.
The first component serves as the main entry point of handling interactive inputs.
Because a completion point for a compiler instance has to be unchanged once it
is set, an incremental compiler instance is created for each code
completion. Such a compiler instance carries over AST context source from the
main interpreter compiler in order to obtain declarations or bindings from
previous input in the same REPL session.
The most important API codeComplete in Interpreter/CodeCompletion is a thin
wrapper that calls with ASTUnit::codeComplete with necessary arguments, such as
a code completion point and a ReplCompletionConsumer, which communicates
completion results from SemaCodeCompletion back to the list completer for the
REPL.
In addition, PCC_TopLevelOrExpression and CCC_TopLevelOrExpression` top levels
were added so that SemaCodeCompletion can treat top level statements like
expression statements at the REPL. For example,
clang-repl> int foo = 42;
clang-repl> f<tab>
From a parser's persective, the cursor is at a top level. If we used code
completion without any changes, PCC_Namespace would be supplied to
Sema::CodeCompleteOrdinaryName, and thus the completion results would not
include foo.
Currently, the way we use PCC_TopLevelOrExpression and
CCC_TopLevelOrExpression is no different from the way we use PCC_Statement
and CCC_Statement respectively.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154382
"
The new patch also fixes clangd and several memory issues that the bots reported
and upload the missing files.
This patch enabled code completion for ClangREPL. The feature was built upon
three existing Clang components: a list completer for LineEditor, a
CompletionConsumer from SemaCodeCompletion, and the ASTUnit::codeComplete method.
The first component serves as the main entry point of handling interactive inputs.
Because a completion point for a compiler instance has to be unchanged once it
is set, an incremental compiler instance is created for each code
completion. Such a compiler instance carries over AST context source from the
main interpreter compiler in order to obtain declarations or bindings from
previous input in the same REPL session.
The most important API codeComplete in Interpreter/CodeCompletion is a thin
wrapper that calls with ASTUnit::codeComplete with necessary arguments, such as
a code completion point and a ReplCompletionConsumer, which communicates
completion results from SemaCodeCompletion back to the list completer for the
REPL.
In addition, PCC_TopLevelOrExpression and CCC_TopLevelOrExpression` top levels
were added so that SemaCodeCompletion can treat top level statements like
expression statements at the REPL. For example,
clang-repl> int foo = 42;
clang-repl> f<tab>
From a parser's persective, the cursor is at a top level. If we used code
completion without any changes, PCC_Namespace would be supplied to
Sema::CodeCompleteOrdinaryName, and thus the completion results would not
include foo.
Currently, the way we use PCC_TopLevelOrExpression and
CCC_TopLevelOrExpression is no different from the way we use PCC_Statement
and CCC_Statement respectively.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154382
