vedgy added a comment. In D139774#4066593 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139774#4066593>, @dblaikie wrote:
>>> (1) seems OK-ish, I guess there's some question as to what the tradeoff is >>> for that option - does that blow out memory usage of the client/kdevelop? >>> But I guess it's probably fine. >> >> Do you think we should do one of the options for (2) or do you think (1) >> should be sufficient? > > If (1) is sufficient for KDevelop's needs and already implemented in some > form for clangd, if I understand correctly, that seems the cheapest/least > involved? Not sufficient for all KDevelop users. Namely it doesn't work for low-RAM systems where /tmp is on disk to save RAM. The bool (1) and the path (2) options can be passed through API layers together in a struct. They can both be named generally (preferStoringTempFilesInMemory, setTemporaryDirectory) or specifically (storePreamblesInMemory, setPreambleStoragePath). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139774/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139774 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
