nathawes added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39050#1036249, @malaperle wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39050#1021204, @malaperle wrote:
> > For computing the start/end-loc of function bodies, I tried the
> > SingleFileParseMode and SkipFunctionBodies separately ( as a start). The
> > source I use this on looks like this:
> Given the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44247, I think we can do
> without the start/end-loc of function bodies and try some heuristics
> client-side. We can always revisit this later if necessary.
> However, for the end-loc of occurrences, would you be OK with this being
> added? I think it would be a good compromise in terms of performance,
> simplicity and index size.
@malaperle Just to clarify, what's the particular end-loc we're talking about
here? e.g. for a function call, would this be the end of the function's name,
or the closing paren?
For the end of the name, couldn't this be derived from the start loc + symbol
name length (barring token pastes and escaped new lines in the middle of
identifiers, which hopefully aren't too common)?
I can see the value for the closing paren though.
@akyrtzi Are the numbers from Marc-Andre's experiment what you'd expect to see
and is there anything else to try? I'm not familiar with those modes at all to
comment, sorry. I assume any API to gather syntactic structure info would be
based on those modes, right?
cfe-commits mailing list