Looks good to me as a first step. From: Manuel Klimek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:30 AM To: Vane, Edwin; Douglas Gregor Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jordan Rose; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH] First step towards adding a parent map to the ASTContext.
Ping On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Oops. I see it there now. Got lost in the context. From: Manuel Klimek [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:37 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd267%2bpublic%[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Jordan Rose; Vane, Edwin; [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
