ArcsinX wrote: > No, there are countless reports about clangd crash with modules. And a lot of > users don't open issue reports and they just say "clangd supports modules not > usable".
Can you please clarify where this happens? Because currently the only issue which you referenced is about diagnostic message. But in general this happens quite frequently, when someone reports problem in clangd, but really it's a problem inside clang. And here I guess we can reproduce these clangd instability problems with clang, if we create pch files for `#include`'s section manually. > The patch itself in ParsedAST is less than 10 lines. Easy to understand and > won't affect users who don't use modules. > And finally, I think, we have consensus on code level. And what we have gap > is, the experience and feelings for users of modules community and the > realility of lacking implementation resources. Although this is slightly > strange to say in a code review, but I think you can trust me that I am > keeping making things working in limited resources. Sorry, I think we should follow LLVM Developer Policy here but not resources availability and judjment how easy to implement something or not. Modules support feature was already introduced in clangd (by you) and together with this patch we introduce performance degradation in some scenarios (with this feature enabled) and these scenarios had no problems before. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/187432 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
