hokein added a comment. In D58341#1401212 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58341#1401212>, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> For context: @hokein mentioned problems in the clangd's code completion if we > would index these symbols. > This patch in itself does not hurt much, users of the indexing API can > decide how to deal with `UsingDecl` on their own, clangd is just one of the > clients. > > > I wonder how does merge work with Sema results? See the case below, IIUC > > our indexer has one symbol for this using decl, but the code completion > > result from Sema contains two symbols. The symbol ids of these 3 symbols > > are different, so we will end up with 3 completion results. > > That's true, but we're not sure how much this would hurt in practice. > Currently we don't show any results from dynamic index for `std::strcmp`, > which is arguably worse than showing an extra completion item for the using. std::strcmp is a fair case here. Sema seems not returning using-decls as part of code completion results, it this an intended behavior? Is it possible for us to extend Sema to support it? If we decide to provide using-decl results from index, I think we should make sure the code completion information (e.g. signature) is correct. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58341/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
