https://github.com/kadircet requested changes to this pull request.
(sorry for the late reply, we were both OOO :() thanks a lot for great analysis in https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/2344! IIUC, the root cause is we're putting stdlib-index slabs into dynamic-index, but we're building those slabs as if they're static. Hence I think the fix should actually be limited to stdlib-index itself; we should either: 1. layer it as a static-index, so that it won't take precedence over dynamic-index'd symbols. 2. index using `indexHeaderSymbols` so that it gets the same treatment as rest of the dynamic-index'd symbols. I must admit that it wasn't the best idea to use an option struct with some defaults partially in `createStaticIndexingAction`, but I think any more changes in there is going to muddy the waters further. the reason why we don't store docs for static indexing is subtle but valid (we rely on dynamic-index taking over and we always index docs for code-completion enabled symbols). I wouldn't rely on caller to decide on that. So do you mind changing the stdlib-indexing instead? 2nd alternative I mentioned above might be easier, by just using a `SyntaxOnlyAction` and calling `indexHeaderSymbols` after running `Execute` on the action. But I haven't tried it myself, so I'll leave that call to you. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133681 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
