ioeric added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562#941570, @arphaman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562#940201, @ilya-biryukov wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562#939950, @arphaman wrote: > > > > > This change breaks cached completions for declarations in namespaces in > > > libclang. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? We could introduce > > > another flag maybe. > > > > > > Am I right to assume this cache is there to reduce the amount of `Decl`s we > > need to deserialize from `Preamble`s? Maybe we could fix the cache to also > > include namespace-level `Decl`s? It should improve performance of the > > cached completions. > > > I'm not actually 100% sure, but I would imagine that this one of the reasons, > yes. It would be nice to improve the cache to have things like > namespace-level `Decl`, although how will lookup work in that case? Btw, do > you think the cache can be reused in clangd as well? I took a quick look at the completion cache and lookup code. I think the completion cache also assumes that top-level decls are only TU-level decls, and this assumption seems to be also built into the lookup code. At this point, I am inclined to add a separate completion option for what I want (`IgnoreDeclsInTUOrNamespaces`?). Regarding cache in clangd, I think it might be useful short-term, when we still use Sema's global code completion, but long term, we would use symbols from clangd's indexes, so the cache would not be useful anymore. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
