>> > I patched the gtags-parser/Cpp so that it does not record forward >> > definitions of classes (e.g. "class myClass;"), because in bigger projects >> > forward definitions may be used very extensively to reduce compile times, >> > and gtags would report a lot "false-positive" matches. >> > >> > I have not come across a disadvantage of this. Perhaps it could be >> > interesting for forward definitions of functions as well. > > Thank you for your suggestion. > I agree with you. > > By the way, GLOBAL has three tag files: > > 'GTAGS' > Tag file for object definitions. > > 'GRTAGS' > Tag file for object references. > > 'GSYMS' > Tag file for other symbols. > > I would like to move forward definitions of classes from GTAGS to GSYMS. > What do you think? > Are there any problem?
Hi, I think, they should not be stored at all. There may be situations, where something that looks like a forward definition is something different (an empty type definition for some template magic), but in general it is just to avoid an include and is nothing anyone wishes to search for. For functions the situation is different. Regards, and thanks for global... Tobias
_______________________________________________ Bug-global mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global
