ilya-biryukov added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562#941570, @arphaman wrote:
> I'm not actually 100% sure, but I would imagine that this one of the reasons, > yes. It would be nice to improve the cache to have things like > namespace-level `Decl`, although how will lookup work in that case? Btw, do > you think the cache can be reused in clangd as well? As Eric mentioned, we are planning to have project-global completion for namespace-level Decls (to have completion items not #included in the current file and add the #include directive properly). So the cache is probably not that useful to clangd long-term. For proper lookup in the cache that include all namespace-level Decls I'd go with tweaking `LookupVisibleDecls` so that it does not deserialize everything from the preamble, but rather provides a list of scopes that we need to get completion items from. Though sounds simple, it may be a non-trivial change and we shouldn't probably pursue it as part of this change. (We'll probably need it for clangd too). In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562#941735, @ioeric wrote: > I took a quick look at the completion cache and lookup code. I think the > completion cache also assumes that top-level decls are only TU-level decls, > and this assumption seems to be also built into the lookup code. At this > point, I am inclined to add a separate completion option for what I want > (`IgnoreDeclsInTUOrNamespaces`?). Regarding cache in clangd, I think it might > be useful short-term, when we still use Sema's global code completion, but > long term, we would use symbols from clangd's indexes, so the cache would not > be useful anymore. +1 for having a separate flag. Maybe call it `IncludeNamespaceLevelDecls` instead? (I'd say TU is also a (global) namespace from completion's point of view). https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
