https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143647
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
kadircet wrote:
I don't really feel comfortable backporting this change.
it's a significant change with implications on stability, and doesn't really
bring any functional improvements to clangd's module support.
i.e. in absence of this patch, we know that module support "works" (well at
least
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127591
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -67,35 +68,84 @@ Semantic Highlighting
Compile flags
^
+- Fixed a bug where clangd would unnecessarily reparse open files whose
+ compile command did not change when receiving a new compile command
+ via an LSP `workspace/configuration` request (#GH115438)
+
@@ -67,35 +68,84 @@ Semantic Highlighting
Compile flags
^
+- Fixed a bug where clangd would unnecessarily reparse open files whose
+ compile command did not change when receiving a new compile command
+ via an LSP `workspace/configuration` request (#GH115438)
+
https://github.com/kadircet edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127358
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
thanks a lot!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127358
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-c
kadircet wrote:
oops I wasn't looking at the target branch :( let me cherry-pick this into main
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126690
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
kadircet wrote:
going to land this one, since review of #126689 can take longer and this should
enable us to unblock our releases. I am happy to revert afterwards.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126690
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
l
https://github.com/kadircet closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126690
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126690
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
kadircet wrote:
what about landing this one, and cherry picking it into the 20 release. then we
can land #126689 and revert this one. giving us the next release cycle to vet
the underlying change?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126690
___
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111245
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106900
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
thanks a lot for doing this @HighCommander4!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105975
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
kadircet wrote:
i believe @tstellar should have that power :rocket:
Do you mind merging this into the branch, or advise on how we should do that
instead?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84436
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branc
@@ -51,21 +51,40 @@ Improvements to clangd
Inlay hints
^^^
+- Type hints
+* Improved heuristics for showing sugared vs. desguared types
+* Some hints which provide no information (e.g. ) are
now omitted
+- Parameter hints
+* Parameter hints are now sho
https://github.com/kadircet approved this pull request.
thanks a lot for doing this @HighCommander4 !
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84436
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
https://github.com/kadircet edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84436
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
kadircet wrote:
Hi @mizvekov thanks for the fix, but I am not sure if this is at the right
level. The way you're bailing out currently prevents clangd from indexing all
implicit definitions, even if we have a hard-coded mapping for them (based on
the symbol name).
Also the map you're preventi
20 matches
Mail list logo