Ping
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
