nridge added a comment. @sammccall, thank you for having a look at this.
I have no objection to revising the data model if there's agreement on a better one. In D59407#1446464 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407#1446464>, @sammccall wrote: > - I don't think we yet know what the more resource-critical (denser) > relations and queries are, so it's unclear what to optimize for Based on a brief mental survey of C++ IDE features I'm familiar with, I can think of the following additional uses of the relations capability: - A call hierarchy feature (which is also proposed for LSP <https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol/issues/468>, with client <https://github.com/theia-ide/theia/issues/3765> and server <https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-languageserver-node/pull/420> implementation efforts) would need every caller-callee relationship to be recorded in the index (`RelationCalledBy`). - Given a virtual method declaration, a user may want to see a list of implementations (overriders) and navigate to one or more of them. This would need every overrider relationship to be recorded in the index (`RelationOverrideOf`). Intuitively, it seems like `RelationOverrideOf` would be slightly denser than `RelationChildOf` (though not by much), while `RelationCalledBy` would be significantly denser. In terms of queries, I believe the key for lookups for both of the above would be a (subject, predicate) pair, just like for subtypes. Does that change your analysis at all? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
