nathawes added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39050#1036249, @malaperle wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39050#1021204, @malaperle wrote: > > > For computing the start/end-loc of function bodies, I tried the > > SingleFileParseMode and SkipFunctionBodies separately ( as a start). The > > source I use this on looks like this: > > > > > > > Given the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44247, I think we can do > without the start/end-loc of function bodies and try some heuristics > client-side. We can always revisit this later if necessary. > > However, for the end-loc of occurrences, would you be OK with this being > added? I think it would be a good compromise in terms of performance, > simplicity and index size. @malaperle Just to clarify, what's the particular end-loc we're talking about here? e.g. for a function call, would this be the end of the function's name, or the closing paren? For the end of the name, couldn't this be derived from the start loc + symbol name length (barring token pastes and escaped new lines in the middle of identifiers, which hopefully aren't too common)? I can see the value for the closing paren though. @akyrtzi Are the numbers from Marc-Andre's experiment what you'd expect to see and is there anything else to try? I'm not familiar with those modes at all to comment, sorry. I assume any API to gather syntactic structure info would be based on those modes, right? https://reviews.llvm.org/D39050 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
