You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would appear that the cursor displayname (and spelling) properties are empty when the cursor type is POINTER or OBJCOBJECTPOINTER and the type contains Objective-C protocol information. The regular protocol-less pointer testVar seems to work fine.
Additionally, I see no way to access the protocol modifier on the type declaration of the variables (the angle brackets <SomeProtocol>). The variable types are reported as simple pointers without any protocol information that I can identify.
I've also included objWithSomeMethod3 which is not a pointer (OBJCINTERFACE) but has a protocol defined. The displayname works fine however protocol info is likewise unavailable.
Is this behavior intended or am I missing something?
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm not familiar of Objective-C but I think it should be posted to LLVM discussion forums. This repo only provides pre-compiled Python packages to help the installation process and has nothing to do with the behavior of clang parser itself.
I'm experiencing some strange behavior while parsing the following Objective-C code:
Result:
It would appear that the cursor
displayname
(andspelling
) properties are empty when the cursor type isPOINTER
orOBJCOBJECTPOINTER
and the type contains Objective-C protocol information. The regular protocol-less pointertestVar
seems to work fine.Additionally, I see no way to access the protocol modifier on the type declaration of the variables (the angle brackets
<SomeProtocol>
). The variable types are reported as simple pointers without any protocol information that I can identify.I've also included
objWithSomeMethod3
which is not a pointer (OBJCINTERFACE
) but has a protocol defined. Thedisplayname
works fine however protocol info is likewise unavailable.Is this behavior intended or am I missing something?
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: