[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
pidgeon777 wrote: Hopefully we're closer and closer to a merge, this really is a missing feature. I think this is the only LSP provider supporting just only one of the callHierarchy methods. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: @kadircet perhaps you might be able to pick up this review? Or, barring of a full review, your opinion on the directional question in [this comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D93829#4654786) would be appreciated as well: > how would you feel about proceeding with the patch in its current state, with > the memory usage increase brought down from 8.2% to 2.5% thanks to the > combination of the simple lookup optimization + RefKind filtering, and > leaving the "deep lookup optimization" to be explored in a future change? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: > I think other than the review it would be 100% done? I mean, no big further > modifications would be involved? In terms of functionality, I'd say the patch is complete. In terms of performance (and specifically memory usage), it's a matter of judgment of what we consider good enough. The current patch increases the memory usage of the index by 2.5% on the example workload of the LLVM codebase. That's not too bad (and a definite improvement over the 8.2% increase for the original version of the patch), but there is a possibility of doing a more involved rework of the index's in-memory representation (discussed under the name "deep lookup optimization" in the Phabricator thread) which would actually result in a net decrease in memory usage even with the feature. One of the key pieces of feedback I'm hoping to get on this patch is whether the 2.5% memory usage increase is acceptable, or if we should consider the deep lookup optimization as a prerequisite. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
pidgeon777 wrote: I was thinking that it's a real pity this branch is so hard to get merged 😅 I think other than the review it would be 100% done? I mean, no big further modifications would be involved? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: Shopping around for some potential alternative reviewers :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
pidgeon777 wrote: @sam-mccall also pinging to assist @HighCommander4 🙂 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: @sam-mccall review ping :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: @sam-mccall review ping :) I would particularly appreciate feedback on whether I should plan to set aside some time to implement the "deep lookup optimization" (from [this comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D93829#4258101)), or whether the 2.5% increase in index memory usage (which I've achieved by implementing everything _except_ the deep lookup optimization from that comment) is acceptable. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
HighCommander4 wrote: Since Phabricator has been [taken down](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/llvm-phabricator-turndown/76137), I'm resubmitting the patch implementing outgoing calls in call hierarchy that was previously posted at https://reviews.llvm.org/D93829. Previous discussion can still be seen at the Phabricator link which now links to a static snapshot of the review. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] Support outgoing calls in call hierarchy (PR #77556)
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77556 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
