[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clangd] Collect comments from function definitions into the index (PR #67802)
ckandeler wrote: > Ok, I see. (I was confused because nothing in the patch looks at the contents > of `Symbol::DocComment` other than > an `empty()` check; maybe a `bool HasDocComment` flag is sufficient?) Right, we just need to save the information whether there was a doc comment before clangd put default values into the Documentation field. > I'll have a more detailed look when I get a chance, but one suggestion I > wanted to make in the meantime: for > changes that add new information to the index, it helps to have a sense of > how large of an increase to the index's > disk and memory footprint they entail. In the past, I've measured this with > the LLVM codebase's index as a "test > case". Will check. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clangd] Collect comments from function definitions into the index (PR #67802)
HighCommander4 wrote: Ok, I see. (I was confused because nothing in the patch looks at the contents of `Symbol::DocComment` other than an `empty()` check; maybe a `bool HasDocComment` flag is sufficient?) I'll have a more detailed look when I get a chance, but one suggestion I wanted to make in the meantime: for changes that add new information to the index, it helps to have a sense of how large of an increase to the index's disk and memory footprint they entail. In the past, I've measured this with the LLVM codebase's index as a "test case". The disk footprint can be measured with a simple `du -hs .cache/clangd/index` or similar. For the memory footprint, we have a `$/memoryUsage` protocol extension that provides this information (the `background_index` entry in particular is of interest). Perhaps you would be interested in taking some before/after measurements along these lines? Feel free to choose a different codebase than LLVM as the test case, especially if you know of one that uses "doc comments at the definition" as the prevailing style. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clangd] Collect comments from function definitions into the index (PR #67802)
ckandeler wrote: > Do you have another patch where you use the new `DocComment` field? Is it > for showing in a hover? Yes, it is for showing documentation in a hover. clangd already supports that; it's just that it currently works only if the comments are attached to the declaration. With this patch it works also for comments at the implementation site, (which I think was the intended behavior all along). No additional patch is necessary. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clangd] Collect comments from function definitions into the index (PR #67802)
HighCommander4 wrote: Do you have another patch where you use the new `DocComment` field? Is it for showing in a hover? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clangd] Collect comments from function definitions into the index (PR #67802)
ckandeler wrote: ping https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
