ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clangd/index/Index.h:232
/// See also isIndexedForCodeCompletion().
+ /// Note that we don't store completion information (signature, snippet,
+ /// documentation, type, inclues, etc) if the symbol is not indexed for
code
----------------
This comment would be most useful beside the mentioned fields themselves. Maybe
add it there too? Possibly with a shorter form, since there's no need to
mention the field names there.
================
Comment at: clangd/index/SymbolCollector.cpp:543
+
+ if (!(S.Flags & Symbol::IndexedForCodeCompletion))
+ return Insert(S);
----------------
Most of the fields updated at the bottom aren't useful. However, I feel the
documentation is actually important, since Sema only has doc comments for the
**current** file and the rest are currently expected to be provided by the
index.
I'm not sure if we already have the code to query the doc comments via index
for member completions. If not, it's an oversight.
In any case, I suggest we **always** store the comments in **dynamic** index.
Not storing the comments in the static index is fine, since any data for member
completions should be provided by the dynamic index (we see a member in
completion ⇒ sema has processed the headers ⇒ the dynamic index should know
about those members)
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
