ArcsinX wrote: > And again, also the maintainability is very important too. This is why I > choose the minimal patch, maintainable and understandable. I tried to not > building PCH. But I don't like that patch. It is workaround too and not the > fundamental fix (fundamental fix lives in the serialization part in clang). > Why do we choose a bigger workaround?
I found that for me clangd still crashes if I import a module in a header file (even with this patch) and this happens at preamble index update. Therefore, I believe we should completely disable preamble optimization if we decide to address stability issue on the clangd side. I had a chance to take a look at the original patch, and it also seemed architecturally incorrect to me, as we reset the preamble size based on what's written in the headers. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/187432 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
