ioeric added a comment. Thanks for the review!
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48961#1152999, @sammccall wrote: > I worry this is a trap: the indexing infrastructure here is designed so you > can run it as a frontendaction, on an ASTUnit, or by passing a set of top > level decls. > However the macro functionality necessarily only works when running as a > frontend action, so the same consumer would have different semantics when > using these functions. > Moreover, clangd does call indexTopLevelDecls(), so this API might actually > be awkward for us to use. > > Alternatives would be: > > - write lots of loud documentation and hope people read it > - punt on generalization and just do what we need in clangd with PPCallbacks > directly > - offer a peer API here for consuming macros, and have the > indexTopLevelDecls() etc only take the symbol consumer, > createIndexingAction() would create both (and you could have a > createIndexingPPCallbacks() that takes only the macro consumer). > > WDYT? As chatted offline, the fact that `indexTopLevelDecls` etc can't index macros is unfortunate, but it seems to be by the current design and probably due to how preprocessor and AST work. As you suggested, I added some comments to make this more explicit and also exposed a function that returns a PPCallbacks for indexing macros, which should be useful for clangd's dynamic index. Hope this would make these functions harder to misuse. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D48961 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
