ioeric added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/Index.h:440 /// return more than this, e.g. if it doesn't know which candidates are best. - size_t MaxCandidateCount = std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max(); + uint32_t MaxCandidateCount = std::numeric_limits<uint32_t>::max(); /// If set to true, only symbols for completion support will be considered. ---------------- sammccall wrote: > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > ioeric wrote: > > > kbobyrev wrote: > > > > ioeric wrote: > > > > > Or use `unsigned`? > > > > `unsigned` would have different size on different platforms, I'm not > > > > really sure we want that; could you elaborate on why you think that > > > > would be better? > > > I thought it's (almost) always 4 bytes? But it should always have a > > > smaller size than `uint64_t` in json serialization, so it should work for > > > us. In general, I would prefer `unsigned` to `uint32_t` when possible. > > > For most of the platforms, they are the same. But up to you :) I don't > > > really feel strong about this. > > BTW, many people think using unsigned ints just because inputs can't be > > negative is a bad idea. > > See https://stackoverflow.com/a/18796234 > I mostly agree with that, but LLVM uses unsigned types pervasively, and > -Wsign-compare, so they're hard to avoid. > > (FWIW, I still think that this case has become complicated enough that we > should use the most explicit option, which seems like Optional here) The complication seems to be mostly in json serialization of the field, which is more of an implementation detail I think. If we could get away with using max unsigned as no limit, which seems to have worked well so far, I would still prefer it over `Optional`, as it is less confusing on the reference site and involves less refactoring. https://reviews.llvm.org/D51860 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
