nridge added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/Serialization.h:81 +// Used for serializing SymbolRole as used in Relation. +enum class RelationKind : uint8_t { ChildOf = 1, BaseOf }; +llvm::Expected<RelationKind> symbolRoleToRelationKind(index::SymbolRole); ---------------- nridge wrote: > kadircet wrote: > > kadircet wrote: > > > why not start from zero? > > > > > > Also let's change the `index::SymbolRole` in `Relation` with this one. > > why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy? > > Also let's change the index::SymbolRole in Relation with this one. > > You previously asked for the opposite change in [this > comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407?id=190785#inline-525734) :) > > Did your opinion change? > why not start from zero? The original motivation was so that we had a distinct value to return in case of an error. However, now that we use `llvm_unreachable` that doesn't seem to be necessary any more. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/Serialization.h:81 +// Used for serializing SymbolRole as used in Relation. +enum class RelationKind : uint8_t { ChildOf = 1, BaseOf }; +llvm::Expected<RelationKind> symbolRoleToRelationKind(index::SymbolRole); ---------------- nridge wrote: > nridge wrote: > > kadircet wrote: > > > kadircet wrote: > > > > why not start from zero? > > > > > > > > Also let's change the `index::SymbolRole` in `Relation` with this one. > > > why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy? > > > Also let's change the index::SymbolRole in Relation with this one. > > > > You previously asked for the opposite change in [this > > comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407?id=190785#inline-525734) :) > > > > Did your opinion change? > > why not start from zero? > > The original motivation was so that we had a distinct value to return in case > of an error. However, now that we use `llvm_unreachable` that doesn't seem to > be necessary any more. > why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy? In the future, we may want to be able to look up supertypes in the index as well (for example, to handle scenarios where a type that is only forward-declared in the current TU is queried). However, we can add that later, and just focus on subtypes for now, which only require BaseOf. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62459/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62459 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits