sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TUScheduler.cpp:1445
+void TUScheduler::attachMemoryUsage(MemoryTree &MT) const {
+ IdleASTs->attachMemoryUsage(*MT.addChild("ast_cahe"));
+ // Otherwise preambles are stored on disk and we only keep filename in
memory.
----------------
should we group by file instead? The fact that the AST-cache is owned by
TUScheduler and not ASTWorker seems like a confusing detail that it might be
better to omit
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TUScheduler.cpp:1450
+ for (const auto &Elem : fileStats())
+ Preambles.addDetail(Elem.first())
+ ->addUsage(Elem.second.UsedBytesPreamble);
----------------
why aren't we also using the UsedBytesAST estimate here, and instead walking
through the cache directly?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TUScheduler.h:316
+ void attachMemoryUsage(MemoryTree &MT) const;
+
----------------
(raised naming of these functions in another patch, however that ends up let's
ensure they match)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88415/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88415
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
