Tests where the RUN-lines/CHECK-ed output refer to line numbers in the test
file are a maintenance burden, as inserting text in the appropriate place
invalidates all the subsequent line numbers.

Lit supports %(line+n) for this, and FileCheck supports [[@LINE+N]].
But many existing tests don't make use of it and still need to be modified.

This commit adds a script that can find line numbers in tests according to a
regex and replace them with the appropriate relative-line reference.
It contains some options to avoid inappropriately rewriting tests where absolute
numbers are appropriate: a "nearby" threshold and a refusal by default to
replace only some matched line numbers.

I've applied it to CodeComplete tests, this proves the concept but also are the
single worst group of tests I've seen in this respect.
These changes are likely to hit merge conflicts, but can be regenerated with:

```
find ../clang/test/CodeCompletion/ -type f | grep -v /Inputs/ | xargs ../llvm/utils/relative_lines.py --verbose --near=20 --pattern='-code-completion-at[ =]%s:(\\d+):' --pattern='requires fix-it: {(\d+):\d+-(\d+):\d+}'
````

As requested in https://reviews.llvm.org/D140044

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59553

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140217

Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/490

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85826

Summary:
CodeCompletion was not being triggered after successfully parsed
initializer lists, e.g.

```cpp
void foo(int, bool);
void bar() {
  foo({1}^, false);
}
```

CodeCompletion would suggest the function foo as an overload candidate up until
the point marked with `^` but after that point we do not trigger signature help
since parsing succeeds.

This patch handles that case by failing in parsing expression lists whenever we
see a codecompletion token, in addition to getting an invalid subexpression.

Reviewers: sammccall

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Tags: #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73177

Summary:
Code completion in clang is actually a mix of two features:
- Code completion is a familiar feature. Results are exposed via the
  CodeCompleteConsumer::ProcessCodeCompleteResults callback.
- Signature help figures out if the current expression is an argument of
  some function call and shows corresponding signatures if so.
  Results are exposed via CodeCompleteConsumer::ProcessOverloadCandidates.

This patch refactors the implementation to untangle those two from each
other and makes some naming tweaks to avoid confusion when reading the
code.

The refactoring is required for signature help fixes, see D51038.

The only intended behavior change is the order of callbacks.
ProcessOverloadCandidates is now called before ProcessCodeCompleteResults.

Reviewers: sammccall, kadircet

Reviewed By: sammccall

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51782

llvm-svn: 341660

Summary:
Adjusted PrintingPolicy inside code completion to avoid printing some
redundant name qualifiers.

Before this change, typedefs that were written unqualified in source
code were printed with qualifiers in completion. For example, in the
following code

    struct foo {
        typedef int type;
        type method();
    };

completion item for `method` had return type of `foo::type`, even
though the original code used `type` without qualifiers.
After this change, the completion item has return type `type`, as
originally written in the source code.

Note that this change does not suppress qualifiers written by the
user. For example, in the following code

    typedef int type;
    struct foo {
        typedef int type;
        ::type method(foo::type);
    };

completion item for `method` has return type of `::type` and
parameter type of `foo::type`, as originally written in the source
code.

Reviewers: arphaman, bkramer, klimek

Reviewed By: arphaman

Subscribers: mgorny, eraman, cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38538

llvm-svn: 317677

Various tests had sprung up over the years which had --check-prefix=ABC on the
RUN line, but "CHECK-ABC:" later on. This happened to work before, but was
strictly incorrect. FileCheck is getting stricter soon though.

Patch by Ron Ofir.

llvm-svn: 188174

That bug concerned the well-formedness of code such as (&ovl)(a, b,
c). GCC rejects the code, while EDG accepts it. On further study of the
standard, I see no support for EDG's position: in particular, C++
[over.over] does not list this as a context where we can take the
address of an overloaded function, C++ [over.call.func] does not
reference the address-of operator at any point, and C++ [expr.call]
claims that the function argument in a call is either a function
lvalue or a pointer-to-function; (&ovl) is neither.

llvm-svn: 118620

with, e.g., (&f)(a, b, c). Fixes PR8013.

llvm-svn: 118508

completions. Plus, tweak a few completion patterns to better reflect
the language grammar.

llvm-svn: 104905

statements }) in the code-completion results if explicitly requested.

llvm-svn: 104637