HighCommander4 wrote: > > @kadircet perhaps you might be able to pick up this review? > > Or, in the absence of a full review, your opinion on the directional > > question in [this comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D93829#4654786) would > > be appreciated as well: > > > how would you feel about proceeding with the patch in its current state, > > > with the memory usage increase brought down from 8.2% to 2.5% thanks to > > > the combination of the simple lookup optimization + RefKind filtering, > > > and leaving the "deep lookup optimization" to be explored in a future > > > change? > > I'd definitely prefer the one we discussed in the original review, but I > don't think perfect needs to be enemy of the good, we can surely optimize > data structures here going forward if needed.
I filed https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/2264 as a follow-up to track implementation of the "deep lookup optimization". https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117673 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
