Hi, > OK to check in?
Yes, absolutely, for our use-case (and thanks for asking); for clang itself I'm not qualified to answer :-) Cheers, Axel. On 25/02/15 21:07, Sterling Augustine wrote: > Circling back to this incremental parsing. > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Vassil Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote: >> The reason we went for IncrementalProcessing is that it does more than just >> parsing, it allows clang to be able to continue working even upon seeing an >> EOF token. > > Right. > >> Could you also add a test case maybe closer to your planned use-case? > > It's actually somewhat difficult because it requires a lot of > infrastructure to get there. > > The short version is that ParseAST doesn't allow me to modify the > preprocessor before it starts parsing. > > But from a functionality perspective, nothing should be different than > it is today. Whatever test cases exist should cover the functionality > present. > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Axel Naumann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wow, that's so much nicer! > > Thanks! > > OK to check in? > > Sterling > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
