stefanhaller added a comment. In D124715#3491985 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124715#3491985>, @sammccall wrote:
> I'm still concerned some users will find this a large regression and we won't > have a good workaround: > > - it'll use a lot more battery than before On Intel Macs, I'm not sure that's true. While it does saturate the CPUs noticeably more with Utility than it does with Background, it will also be finished much quicker, so I guess the total power consumption will probably be roughly the same. On M1 <https://reviews.llvm.org/M1> Macs, it's true that it will use a lot more battery. However, M1 <https://reviews.llvm.org/M1> Macs are also much more energy efficient in general, so it doesn't matter nearly as much. I don't think it will be perceived as a regression there. (On the contrary, people who switch from Intel to M1 <https://reviews.llvm.org/M1> Macs perceive it as a regression that indexing is so slow, even though the machine should be so much faster. I have plenty of colleagues who are in that situation, and have heard this complaint several times.) > What do you think about keeping `Background` in the enum along with `Low`, > and switching clangd to `Low`? Personally I don't feel this is necessary, but I can of course change the patch if there's agreement that that's what we should do. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124715/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124715 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
