On Nov 5, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Kim Gräsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Argyrios, Doug, > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Could we change the Preprocessor to accept an optional pointer to a > > ModuleLoader ? > > Since Preprocessor has a getModuleLoader() method, that would force > null-checks on all callers. Currently only 2 of them, so no big deal, but I > tend to shy away from exposing NULLs. How about if you don't pass an implementation of ModuleLoader, the preprocessor creates internally the "VoidModuleLoader". > > > This will eliminate the whole "VoidModuleLoader" business and the hack of > > having the ASTUnit "implement" a ModuleLoader just so we have something to > > pass to the Preprocessor when loading an AST file. > > I didn't know about that hack. If there was a VoidModuleLoader next to > ModuleLoader, you could use that ;-) > > - Kim >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
