ilya-biryukov added a comment.

In, @klimek wrote:

> High-level question: Why can't we use llvm::ThreadPool?

It is not an in-place replacement as it does not allow to prioritize new tasks 
over old ones (new tasks are usually more important for clangd as the old ones 
are often outdated when new ones are added).
I looked into using `llvm::ThreadPool` before, but decided to stay with our own 
It gives us more flexibility over threading and it is not hard to maintain (I 
think it's under 100 lines of code, and the code is rather simple).

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to