Menu
▾
▴
#25 type tooltip of variable is wrong
IN the attached rar file you can find a very short
dummy project.
Let's focus on the main function :
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
test_t test = value1;
test = (test_t)1;
f((test_t)yes);
int variable =0;
{
char variable;
variable +=10;
}
// system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
problem 1 : no type info when cursor is over argv (argc
is ok)
problem 2 : no type info when cursor is over first
occurence of the variable test (on the next line it is ok)
problem 3 : no type info when cursor is over first
occurence of the variable 'variable' (analog to problem 2)
problem 4 : type info when cursor is over occurence 2
and 3 of variable 'variable' and it says int !!! where
now we are in a different scope and it should be char !
Problem or not implemented : no info when cursor is
over a value from an enum. Would be good that it was
shown of what enum type the value came.
Cheers,
Lieven
Logged In: YES
user_id=591019
check bug #634363. a similar bug reported by me quite a
while ago and not fixed yet.
Logged In: YES
user_id=602705
I just have retested this bug report with version 4.9.9.1, a
version downloaded from www.castlesofpoland.com on 27
november 2004, and I can confirm all mentioned bugs are
still present.
Lieven
Logged In: YES
user_id=602705
I just have retested this bug report with version 4.9.9.1, a
version downloaded from www.castlesofpoland.com on 27
november 2004, and I can confirm all mentioned bugs are
still present.
Lieven
Logged In: YES
user_id=602705
As for probem 1, I experimented a bit, these are the results :
Each time we just change the prototype of the main function
1) int main(int argc, char argv)
--> tooltips OK
2) int main(int argc, char argv)
--> tooltips OK
3) int main(int argc[], char* argv)
--> NO tooltip for argc, it seems that during the lookup
of the variable name, the [] were not removed and the
variable is probably only known as argc in the lookup table
(assuming there's a lookup table).
Now add as the first statement in the main function :
argc = 0; ---> NO tooltip (when switching back to int argc
in the main, then there's a tooltip)
Here we can/could conclude something different, the lookup
on this line should happen on the name argc (correct name,
nothing attached to it), so maybe the variable is not in the
lookup table like that, maybe it is in the lookuptable as
argc[] . Then it is well possible that the lookup in the
main prototype line was removing the [] from argc[] and thus
looking up argc, but if it is in the lookputable as argc[]
then offcourse there's no match.
Lieven
PS : this main function is dummy !! normally you get an
array on argv and not on argc, I reasoned on argc, to remove
the pointer fact.
PS 2 : the tooltip for argc in the case of int argc[] should
be either int*, and prefarrably int [] .
Logged In: YES
user_id=602705
Some more testing material, I hace attached another file
'temp.cpp', this is the contents :
class CPoint
{
int x;
int y;
CPoint(int xvar, int yvar);
Set(int varx, int vary);
};
int main(int argc, char* argv)
{
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
CPoint::CPoint(int xvar, int yvar)
{
x = 5;
y = 5;
}
Focus on the CPoint class, in the class definition, hover
the mouse of xvar, yvar of the constructor --> correct tooltips.
Now go to the implementation of the constructor -- > No
tooltips, change the CPoint::CPoint to CPoint::Unknown -->
correct tooltips, change ot to CPoint::Set --> NO tooltips.
Logged In: YES
user_id=602705
Something else which is weird/wrong. Go either to class
definition or implementation of the CPoint constructor. Put
the focus by clicking just in front of the first int (so
after the ( ).
Nothing happens, now press spacebar once --> function type
tooltip showing up ---> but 2/2 ?? Then press either up or
down arrow in the tooltip and look at the right hand side of
the tooltip rectangle, click either arrow again. (it shrinks
and grows)
Hope some fixes arrive on the tooltips, since it's a damn
good feature, but not when it's buggy (definetely not when
it is showing wrong information).
kind regards,
Lieven
Logged In: YES
user_id=609236
nothing related to c++ parser is going to be fixed by the
next version. so bugs like that are definitely not fixed