sammccall added a comment. Taking another look at the header list, there are a couple of classes of symbols beyond c/c++ standard library.
We don't have an alternative database for these. Maybe we should keep the mechanism but stop using it for the standard library? What do you think? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/CanonicalIncludes.h:49 /// in <iosfwd> need to be mapped individually). Approximately, the following /// system headers are handled: /// - C++ standard library e.g. bits/basic_string.h$ -> <string> ---------------- should we update these comments? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/CanonicalIncludes.h:51 /// - C++ standard library e.g. bits/basic_string.h$ -> <string> /// - Posix library e.g. bits/pthreadtypes.h$ -> <pthread.h> /// - Compiler extensions, e.g. include/avx512bwintrin.h$ -> <immintrin.h> ---------------- hmm, are we going to regress all of posix? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/CanonicalIncludes.h:52 /// - Posix library e.g. bits/pthreadtypes.h$ -> <pthread.h> /// - Compiler extensions, e.g. include/avx512bwintrin.h$ -> <immintrin.h> /// The mapping is hardcoded and hand-maintained, so it might not cover all ---------------- and builtins, these are actually owned by us so should be portable Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88204/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88204 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
