[clangd-dev] additional TextEdits on code completion
Sam McCall via clangd-dev
clangd-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Apr 8 01:05:40 PDT 2019
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:36 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com>
> Sam McCall <sammccall at google.com> writes:
> > Sorry about that :-( +Eric Liu <ioeric at google.com> who may have
> > I don't think we have an option to disable includes today, maybe we
> > add one...
> > But we don't expect the inserted includes to create compile errors -
> > is probably a bug, it'd be great if you could provide more details* (is
> > the right header but spelled wrong, or the wrong header entirely, etc).
> > may be that you'd like this feature if it worked properly.
> Sorry for the delay in response. This mostly is due to the location where
> the #include line is added. With company-lsp (emacs), it gets added at
> the beginning of the file and the dependency across headers results in
> build failures.
If you have time, it'd be great to see a breakdown of such an example
(which files and symbols are involved, how the compile error comes about).
Currently we're assuming:
1) each symbol has a single header where its "main" declaration is found
2) if you're using a symbol in a file, that header should be included (or
the symbol should be forward-declared)
3) it's safe and useful to directly include exactly the directly required
headers, rather than relying on transitive includes
This style is called include-what-you-use. Its main advantages: it tends
not to break code when #include structure changes, and it's easy to decide
what should be #included.
Personally, my advice would be to follow this style. If inserting an
#include header breaks your compile, it's likely that:
- that header is not #including one of its dependencies
- you have a circular dependency, which can be resolved with a forward
- header guards are missing somewhere
However I do think it might make sense to offer a way to disable include
insertion entirely for projects that are not IWYU-style and don't want to
I do have a pending patch to never insert #includes of files that don't
have recognized header guards (#ifdef/#define/#endif).
This avoids triggering the feature in *some* cases where it's not safe.
Happy to look at other heuristics if they're feasible to implement.
One important thing to note is, I am able to build without any
> error even without the new #include line. Hence not sure why we should add
> extra #include when completing function names.
1) Often the relevant header is *transitively* included already, but not
directly included. If file A needs symbol C, relying on a transitive A.c ->
B.h -> C.h include means that if B stops depending on C, or A stops
depending on B, then A will break.
2) There are lots of possible behaviors here and they all have downsides,
we have to pick one (at least as default).
a) never inserting headers: breaks code after many completions
b) inserting only when the symbol isn't declared in a transitively
included header: unacceptable performance penalty to deserialize all
declarations from the preamble, problems with incomplete types
c) inserting only when the primary header isn't transitively included:
unpredictable behavior in large codebases, still can break compiles in the
d) IWYU: causes problems in codebases that are not IWYU-clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clangd-dev