ioeric added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/DexIndex.h:45 + void build(std::shared_ptr<std::vector<const Symbol *>> Symbols, + llvm::ArrayRef<std::string> URISchemes); ---------------- sammccall wrote: > ioeric wrote: > > URI schemes are property of `Symbols`. We shouldn't need to pass specify > > the schemes again. Dex can collect all possible URI schemes when building > > the index. > > > > I think we could generate proximity paths for index symbols without knowing > > about schemes (when building the index). For example, we could > > `canonicalize` the URI (as in `FileDistance.cpp`), for example, by > > converting `test:///x/y/z` to `/test:/x/y/z`. For a query, we would first > > convert query proximity paths to URIs (of all possible schemes), perform > > the same canonicalization on URIs, and then use the canonicalized paths to > > compute proximity. > We had an offline discussion about URIs which might be interesting. > > Fetching posting lists for all URI schemes at query time seems wasteful, > @ilya-biryukov pointed out that in practice each file is going to exist in > some preferred URI space, and we should only compare that one. > The only obstacle to doing that is that the preference order for URI schemes > is not global, each place we need it it's accepted as configuration. > > Maybe we should change that: as part of registering the URI schemes, we > define a preferred order. And instead of the current operation `makeURI(File, > scheme)` we should just offer APIs like `makePreferredURI(File)` and > `makeFileURI(File)`. That sounds like a good idea. We just need to be careful that indexes do not use non-preferred schemes (e.g. standalone indexer doesn't have the preferred scheme registered). This shouldn't be a problem in practice though. https://reviews.llvm.org/D51481 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
