Looking for a decision whether this is good as a first step, or what I should address before this can go in.
Thanks! /Manuel On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vane, Edwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops. I see it there now. Got lost in the context.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Manuel Klimek [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:37 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; Jordan Rose; Vane, Edwin; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] First step towards adding a parent map to the > ASTContext.**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edwin Vane <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > > I don't know anything about the analyzer but it sounds like it is what > is driving the design. For tools this all looks good if only a little > heavy-handed. Your suggestions for improvements that would make parent map > construction not touch the whole AST would be welcome. > > Question: does MatchASTVisitor::matchesAncestorOf() need fixing to use > the new ASTContext::getParents()?**** > > ** ** > > Yes, and that's part of the patch. At least if I didn't mess anything up? > :)**** > > **** > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D267**** > > ** ** >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
