sammccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51725#1261798, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51725#1255695, @simark wrote: > > > But I am wondering what to do with the feature that allows clangd to change > > compilation database path using the `didChangeConfiguration` notification. > > In my opinion, it's a bug that it's not possible to switch back to use no > > explicit compilation database path, so I'd still like to get this patch > > merged. Or, if we decide this is really not useful, then it should be > > removed. I don't think we should keep the feature in the current state, > > either we fix it or remove it. > > > I would question the usefulness of the option if Theia can live without it, > so I'd vouch for removing it. @sammccall, WDYT? Especially wrt to > auto-indexing and it being a customizable build directory? Agree with you both here. Not being able to reset the initial state is weird, but *being able to* is complicated. (Even more so than switching between CDBs). And since switching between CDBs invalidates almost everything, restarting clangd seems like a great simplification if it's viable for you. Supporting a single CDB that's available on startup (either a flag, or maybe more likely set during initialize()?) would be a very useful simplification. (Even if it's not a lot of code, I find myself getting tangled in it often). >> Even if right now it's not very expensive to restart clangd, do you foresee >> a situation in the future where it could become more expensive? > > We should keep clangd restarts fast, I don't see any reason why they should > be slow. Agree, it's important that clangd starts fast for other reasons. And auto-indexing should stop/resume fine. Shutdown is a slightly trickier case: actually doing a clean shutdown may require waiting for e.g. any current AST parse to finish. But if this is a problem, I think you can just send SIGTERM. > Changing compile_commands.json files would probably always require both > reparsing all the files and reloading all the indexes, so there's little hope > we can make clangd faster in those cases, unless we're willing to keep > multiple versions of the AST/indexes in memory. The only thing I think we can gain is if you change CDBs, but actually many of the commands are *completely* identical. Then we could detect it and avoid invalidating ASTs etc for those files. But this seems like a really marginal edge-case. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51725 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
