NoQ added a comment. Regarding serializing vs not serializing and now vs later.
1. I think we eventually need to provide a reasonable default approach presented to the user. This approach shouldn't be hurting the user dramatically in any sense. Because //serializing// hurts the user's disk space dramatically, and //not-serializing// may be slower and a bit more memory-intensive but isn't too bad in all senses, out of these two options //not-serializing// is definitely preferable as a default approach. 2. Later we should definitely consider the alternative approaches that serialize only some ASTs, with the hope that one of them would turn out to be a better default approach. 3. From 2. it follows that for now it's better to keep both approaches around - as we believe that the ideal approach may be a combination of the two. Therefore it doesn't really matter in what order they land. tl;dr: I propose to land serialization-based approach first, then land non-serialization-based approach later and make it default, then consider taking the best of the two and making it a new default. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
