jkorous added a comment.
Hi, we decided to go with a different solution:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50452
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.
jkorous planned changes to this revision.
jkorous added a comment.
Hi Sam, we are still discussing internally how to fit clangd and XPC together.
Please bear with us and ignore our patches until we decide.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
arphaman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559#1169975, @sammccall wrote:
> Sorry for the delay here, and I'm sorry I haven't been into the patches in
> detail again yet - crazy week. After experiments, I am convinced the
> Transport abstraction patch can turn into something nice
sammccall added a comment.
Sorry for the delay here, and I'm sorry I haven't been into the patches in
detail again yet - crazy week. After experiments, I am convinced the Transport
abstraction patch can turn into something nice **if** we want XPC vs JSON to be
a pure transport-level difference
jkorous added a comment.
BTW Just for the record - I put the rebased & updated patch here: [clangd] XPC
WIP https://reviews.llvm.org/D49548
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commi
jkorous added a comment.
Hi Sam, we discussed a bit more with Alex offline. Ultimately we don't mind
using JSON as part of the generic interface but we'd like to optimize specific
cases in the future (thinking only about code completion so far) which might
need to "work-around" the abstraction.
jkorous added a comment.
Sam, just out of curiosity - would it be possible for you to share any relevant
experience gained by using porting clangd to protobuf-based transport layer?
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
arphaman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559#1165511, @sammccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559#1165172, @jkorous wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam, thanks for your feedback!
> >
> > In general I agree that explicitly factoring out the transport layer and
> > improving layering wo
sammccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559#1165172, @jkorous wrote:
> Hi Sam, thanks for your feedback!
>
> In general I agree that explicitly factoring out the transport layer and
> improving layering would be a good thing. Unfortunately it's highly probable
> that we'd like
jkorous added a comment.
Hi Sam, thanks for your feedback!
In general I agree that explicitly factoring out the transport layer and
improving layering would be a good thing. Unfortunately it's highly probable
that we'd like to drop JSON completely from XPC dispatch (XPC -> JSON ->
ProtocolCall
sammccall added a comment.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for putting this together, and apologies - this is one of the places
where we don't have nice abstractions/layering, so adding XPC was harder than
it should be.
As I mentioned on the other review, I think maybe this patch isn't invasive
enough, we cou
jkorous added a comment.
Ping. Added reviewers suggestion.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jkorous added a comment.
Followed by these two patches:
[clangd] JSON <-> XPC conversions
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48560
[clangd] XPC transport layer
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48562
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48559
jkorous created this revision.
jkorous added a project: clang-tools-extra.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, MaskRay, ioeric, ilya-biryukov, mgorny.
Hi all,
We finally finished a self-contained first version of our implementation of
alternative transport layer for macOS based on XPC.
To en
14 matches
Mail list logo