Philippe Vaucher

Where are we about this pull request? Seems there's a lot of unresolved questions... is the code here something Rip-Rip should consider pulling? What is left to be done? Thanks!...

> One thing that's making me reconsider things is the addition of the clang-check binary to the clang tree as of last week. But since that doesn't do code completion...

> make source.cpp CC=echo CXX=echo I have a similar idea (originally from gccsense) in order to automatically create the .clang_complete files, I could imagine extending it in order to create...

I have the same problem. On my machine, libclang is faster than the clang binary (about 1/4 of the speed), going from about 5 seconds to 1.2 seconds (after the...

I compiled like "cmake -D CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release" followed by "make libclang". I verified and it was compiled using -O3, but maybe I'd try to go the static way as mentionned on...

Btw, maybe we should be more specific about versions: vim: 7.3 boost: 1.45 cmake: 2.8.3 llvm/clang: latest from svn python: 2.6.6 or 2.7 depending on where I test os: Ubuntu,...

Ah, LIBCLANG_TIMING... seems we learn new tricks everyday! @Rip-Rip: do you use the same versions as I do?

Ok here is the output with LIBCLANG_TIMING=1: http://www.ideone.com/vchEJ There's indeed a difference with the 0x14 flag, but none timing wise. There has to be something obvious we're missing :) I'll...

Ok, here are my tests with ./complete: http://ideone.com/icEnH We see that indeed after the reparse it takes only 0.2203 seconds, so that means the vim equivalent is somewhat broken! That's...

HA! I think I discovered what is causing slow perfs. If you _only_ have libclang.so in the lib path, then it's slow. If you have all the other llvm libs...