ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D66990#1656230 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66990#1656230>, @nridge wrote:
> Not a hard requirement, just a nice-to-have for someone moving from one tool > to another :) > If you feel that for now it's better not to do this, I can respect that. Thanks, if that works for you, I would wait until we get/build a better support in the protocol for this. If Eclipse CDT gets a lot of user complaints and this turns out to be an important missing feature, happy to reconsider. FWIW, I find having Eclipse CDT on board to be important for us and therefore happy to make trade-offs when needed. This is a small thing, though, so waiting for an explicit support for this in the protocol does not sound too bad. > I will suggest this for the upstream protocol and see where that goes. SG, keep us posted! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66990/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66990 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
