I think the support brought my clang/llvm tool-chain would greatly improve the performance + accuracy of CND's parser, specially on templates. Given that it was built to be tightly binded to IDE's, supporting it shouldn't be a total nightmare;)
any update about this enhancement?
(In reply to comment #1)
> any update about this enhancement?
which part of this issue you are interested in?
Do you have concerns about parsing speed? Completion accuracy?
Or may be you are interested in clang compiler support?
Nice to talk with you again. To your questions, i am actually interested in the parsing speed and accuracy, but not the compilation support.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi Vladimir,
> Nice to talk with you again.
Me too :-)
> To your questions, i am actually interested in the
> parsing speed and accuracy, but not the compilation support.
What's the size of your project? How long does it take to parse in 7.2?
Can you clarify accuracy problems? Do you mean unresolved identifiers or bad completion choices? May be you face the instability when some files after editing become polluted with unexpected unresolved identifiers.
My project size is around 950K (just includes source code). You are right that I am facing the instability that unresolved identifiers are often appearing, even I just open the source code which hasn't been edited recently. Also, the code completion is somehow very slow when the project gets large.
I have already put the cache directory into a ram disk. It does give some improvement but still not fast enough.
Hi Vladimir and Dan,
I use netbeans in a relative small project, 50k SOC within 1000 files,
and despite its major improvements (thanks Vladimir), it is still sluggish.
IMHO netbeans has to provide an alternative backend for the parsing, either
using clang/llvm tool-chain or by having a native (portable) C/C++ parser.
Perhaps the later would provide a more flexible approach.
(In reply to comment #3)
QtCreator vs QtCreator-wip/clang. I compare the time spent on analysis - the first is much faster. But accuracy of the analysis in the second case the very good. If you only want to receive high speed of parsing that clang most likely won't help.
И огромное спасибо за NetBeans 7.2
Wouldn't it be faster to use a compiler to analyze the code rather than java code?. Code completion in Netbeans is slow, too memory consuming and sometimes unaccurate. Also, there'll be no need to duplicate analysis code. The analysis in clang is very good, better than gcc.