Skip linearization during the fast+incremental path #8827
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jez
approved these changes
May 5, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We can avoid computing linearization during the fast+incremental path, as nothing will have changed that would require that step.
I believe this is safe because as @jez pointed out, we already document the fact that we don't need to compute linearization in
Resolver::runIncrementalwhere we instead callverifyLinearizationComputed.The first commit is the simplest version of this change, and the second refactors a bit to merge the checks for whether we're on the incremental path together. The second commit is definitely not necessary, and I'm happy to revert it if it seems too much like it's obscuring the original change.
Motivation
LSP performance on large codebases.
Test plan
Existing tests.