On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > Ping > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This does not yet implement the LimitNode approach discussed via email, >> but I want to get some opinions in what that interface should look like >> and how we'd want it to behave. If there's agreement that this is >> generally desirable, I'll pull the ASTTypeTraits into AST/. >> >> The impact of this is an O(n) in the number of nodes in the AST >> reduction of complexity for certain kinds of matchers (as otherwise the >> parent map gets recreated for every new MatchFinder). >> >> Open questions: >> - if we implement a second version with a LimitNode, do we want to cache >> those results at all (it's hard, because of the >> multiple-parents-problem). >> - do we want to leave the RAV implementation in ASTContext (which is >> already large), or pull it out into an ASTContextInternal header (or >> similar)? >> - this introduces ast_type_traits::DynTypedNode into a more prominent >> location - if there's problems with that approach, now is the time to >> point it out to me :)
Could we avoid having multiple parents by providing the containing Decl as context? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
