hokein added a comment. Thanks for the feedback, Marc!
Yeah, I think the ClangdIndexDataSymbol and ClangdIndexDataOccurrence are something similar to what https://reviews.llvm.org/D40897 trying to address, maybe put the discussion there? Before that, I think having a sym meeting is a good idea to keep us in the same page. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40548#949279, @ioeric wrote: > > > > I think some of the ideas here could be useful. This patch focuses mostly on > index interfaces and https://reviews.llvm.org/D40897 emphasizes on the design > of symbol structure. The way symbols are stored and used in this patch is > likely to change depending on how https://reviews.llvm.org/D40897 goes. > > > The "Clangd" prefix adds a bit much of clutter so maybe it should be > > removed. I think the main points are that having generic > > foreachSymbols/foreachOccurrence with callbacks is well suited to implement > > multiple features with minimal copying. > > Although I'm not sure if `foreachSymbols`/... would be feasible for all > indexes yet, we do plan to switch to callback-based index interfaces, which > Sam also proposed in the review comments. > > There have been some offline discussions happening around clangd's indexing, > and sorry that we have not been able to keep you up to date. I think it might > be more efficient if we could meet via VC/Hangouts and sync on our designs. > If you don't mind a meeting, I am happy to arrange it via emails. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D40548 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits