[PATCH] D62459: [clangd] Serialization support for RelationSlab

[Nathan Ridge via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

nridge added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/Serialization.h:81
+// Used for serializing SymbolRole as used in Relation.
+enum class RelationKind : uint8_t { ChildOf = 1, BaseOf };
+llvm::Expected<RelationKind> symbolRoleToRelationKind(index::SymbolRole);
----------------
nridge wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > kadircet wrote:
> > > why not start from zero?
> > > 
> > > Also let's change the `index::SymbolRole` in `Relation` with this one.
> > why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy?
> > Also let's change the index::SymbolRole in Relation with this one.
> 
> You previously asked for the opposite change in [this comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407?id=190785#inline-525734) :)
> 
> Did your opinion change?
> why not start from zero?

The original motivation was so that we had a distinct value to return in case of an error. However, now that we use `llvm_unreachable` that doesn't seem to be necessary any more.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/Serialization.h:81
+// Used for serializing SymbolRole as used in Relation.
+enum class RelationKind : uint8_t { ChildOf = 1, BaseOf };
+llvm::Expected<RelationKind> symbolRoleToRelationKind(index::SymbolRole);
----------------
nridge wrote:
> nridge wrote:
> > kadircet wrote:
> > > kadircet wrote:
> > > > why not start from zero?
> > > > 
> > > > Also let's change the `index::SymbolRole` in `Relation` with this one.
> > > why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy?
> > > Also let's change the index::SymbolRole in Relation with this one.
> > 
> > You previously asked for the opposite change in [this comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D59407?id=190785#inline-525734) :)
> > 
> > Did your opinion change?
> > why not start from zero?
> 
> The original motivation was so that we had a distinct value to return in case of an error. However, now that we use `llvm_unreachable` that doesn't seem to be necessary any more.
> why not just store baseof ? do we need both directions for typehierarchy?

In the future, we may want to be able to look up supertypes in the index as well (for example, to handle scenarios where a type that is only forward-declared in the current TU is queried).

However, we can add that later, and just focus on subtypes for now, which only require BaseOf.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62459/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62459