kadircet accepted this revision.
kadircet added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
sorry for the long turn around here, LGTM. let's ship it!
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/StdLib.cpp:233
+ // Sadly we can't use IndexOpts.FileFilter to restrict indexing scope.
+ // Files from outside the location may define true std symbols anyway.
+ // We end up "blessing" such headers, and can only do that by indexing
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > what does `the location` refer to here? I think we should also stress the
> > fact that even when indexing the same file, we have a good chance of seeing
> > different symbols due to PP directives (and different std versions)
> > what does the location refer to here?
>
> It refers to the StdLibLocation Loc, made that explicit.
>
> > I think we should also stress the fact that even when indexing the same
> > file, we have a good chance of seeing different symbols due to PP
> > directives (and different std versions)
>
> Different than what? Do you mean "why might different calls to
> indexStandardLibrary see different symbols" from the same file?
> Different than what? Do you mean "why might different calls to
> indexStandardLibrary see different symbols" from the same file?
yes, i meant compared to a previous runs. but i don't think it's as relevant
here. i believe i was thinking about caching indexing status across runs and
using that cache to implement filefilter, so that we don't index the same file
twice (as we normally do in bgindex).
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/StdLib.cpp:256
+ if (HadErrors) {
+ log("Errors when generating the standard library index, index may be "
+ "incomplete");
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > i'd make this part of the next log
> Can you say why? I generally like one thought per line. Scanning vertically
> through familiar lines, it's easy to miss something unfamiliar tacked onto
> the end. This message should be rare, and log lines aren't precious.
>
> (I reordered them, which seems a bit more natural)
i was rather implying to add it as a `(in)complete` field into the current log
line you have. usually when clangd is printing lots of logs across threads it
might be hard to correlate these. hence having them printed as a single log
would help.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/StdLib.cpp:313
+ llvm::StringRef DirPath = llvm::sys::path::parent_path(HeaderPath);
+ if (!HS.getFileMgr().getVirtualFileSystem().getRealPath(DirPath, Path))
+ SearchPaths.emplace_back(Path);
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > kadircet wrote:
> > > why do we resolve the symlinks ?
> > Oops, because I read the documentation of getCanonicalPath() instead of the
> > implementation, and they diverged in
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/dd67793c0c549638cd93cad1142d324b979ba682
> > :-D
> >
> > Ultimately we're forming URIs to lexically compare with the ones emitted by
> > the indexer, which uses getCanonicalPath(). Today getCanonicalPath() wants
> > a FileEntry and we don't have one, but I think there's no fundamental
> > reason for that, I can fix it.
> >
> > (I'll do it as a separate patch, for now it's just calling getCanonicalPath
> > with the wrong arguments)
> Actually, nevermind, the code is correct and I'd just forgotten why :-) Added
> a comment to StdLibLocation.
>
> getCanonicalPath() does actually resolve symlinks and so on: it asks the
> FileManager for the directory entry and grabs the its "canonical name" which
> is just FS->getRealPath behind a cache.
> So the strings are going to match the indexer after all.
>
> It'd be possible to modify getCanonicalPath() so we can call it here, but I
> don't think it helps. Calling it with (path, filemanager) is inconvenient for
> the (many) existing callsites, so it'd have to be a new overload just for
> this case. And the FileManager caching we'd gain doesn't matter here.
> I can still do it if you like, though.
>
> (Also, relevant to your interests, realpath is probably taking care of case
> mismatches too!)
>So the strings are going to match the indexer after all.
thanks, this makes sense.
> It'd be possible to modify getCanonicalPath() so we can call it here, but I
> don't think it helps. Calling it with (path, filemanager) is inconvenient for
> the (many) existing callsites, so it'd have to be a new overload just for
> this case. And the FileManager caching we'd gain doesn't matter here.
> I can still do it if you like, though.
No need. We can take a look at that if the logic is likely to change (or get
more complicated) in the future.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/StdLib.h:66
+ // This function is threadsafe.
+ llvm::Optional<StdLibLocation> add(const LangOptions &, const HeaderSearch
&);
+
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > maybe drop the optinal and bail out in indexing when `Paths` are empty ?
> Why? This would definitely be using an empty vector as a sentinel value:
> - 2 paths -> index
> - 1 path -> index
> - 0 paths -> don't index
> And it's not as if "probe for a standard library" is the main point of this
> function so the interpretation of the return value is obvious - that's only
> one of three criteria.
>
> None seems to be a clearer way to communicate this than {}, and performance
> doesn't seem to be an issue here.
okay, makes sense.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115232/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115232
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
