Gregory, The compilation database patch is easy to rebase, so feel free not to hold off. I (would) expect some discussion to happen on the libclang related part with respect to tooling stuff.
Cheers, -- Arnaud de Grandmaison On 06/23/2012 07:23 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I've been wanting to do this for a while: this patch refactors how the > libclang functions are registered in the Python bindings. > > Instead of creating a separate symbol for each libclang function, we > perform the ctypes magic directly on an instance of the libclang > library. Things are defined in a function in the rare case someone > wants to have multiple handles to the libclang library. > > This increases the cohesion between libclang and the Python bindings > and IMO makes the Python easier to read since you don't need to > maintain a mapping from the Python function name to the libclang > function name. > > Since this deletes symbols from the module, this is technically > backwards incompatible. But, I would argue that people should never > have been using these symbols directly (they offer little benefit > without the classes in the module). > > This will bit rot the compilation database patch that is pending > review on this list. I don't like bit rotting people, so I may hold > off landing this until after that patch. > > There is a high risk of typos in this patch. The nose tests all pass, > but our test coverage isn't perfect. > > Some function definitions from missing features (tokens, resource > usage) are commented out because I cherry-picked this patch from my > personal branch and these features were implemented in that branch > before this patch. I'll simply remove the comments once those > corresponding features land (which will be shortly, I hope). > > Gregory -- Arnaud de Grandmaison _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
