[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
malaperle-ericsson abandoned this revision. malaperle-ericsson added a comment. Abandoned because of wrong approach. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
malaperle-ericsson added a comment. Perfect. Thanks a lot for the explanation! Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
bkramer added a comment. libclang is supposed to be used for bindings to other languages (it's a pure C interface) and its stable. ASTUnit is the C++ side of libclang, libclang is just a thin wrapper around ASTUnit. ASTUnit itself suffers from lots of technical debt because clang changed since ASTUnit was created and ASTUnit was never refactored to accommodate that. Even in the current state using ASTUnit gives you more control over clang, e.g. it lets you use the VFS which is not exposed in libclang. At some point we're going to need a cleaner replacement for ASTUnit, but currently it's the only place in clang that supports the precompiled preamble needed for speedy code completion. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
malaperle-ericsson added a subscriber: bkramer. malaperle-ericsson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019#702631, @bkramer wrote: > It's not. the goal is to get rid of ASTUnit inside of clangd in the long term > as it's a big problem for extensibility. libclang is just a wrapper for > ASTUnit, with even more problems. > > If you want to get completion running, just call ASTUnit::CodeComplete. Thanks a lot. When you say the goal is to get rid of ASTUnit, what would it be replaced with? Also, why would one use libclang over ASTUnit (libclangFrontend) then? Perhaps there's some documentation listing the pros and cons? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
bkramer resigned from this revision. bkramer added a comment. It's not. the goal is to get rid of ASTUnit inside of clangd in the long term as it's a big problem for extensibility. libclang is just a wrapper for ASTUnit, with even more problems. If you want to get completion running, just call ASTUnit::CodeComplete. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D31019: [clangd] [RFC] Use libclang and CXTranslationUnit instead of ASTUnit
malaperle-ericsson added a comment. Just to make things clear, I'm really not sure if this is the right approach and I'm looking for opinions before going further in that direction (code completion). Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31019 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
