On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > Thinking about this I wonder if we might want two EmitLocation routines > instead, with one to force the column. Another thought is just to always > emit it and ignore it in the backend. Can you take a look at that and see > whether it would be better? > > I believe one of the original reasons behind removing column info by > default is that getColumnNumber() was deemed too expensive to call every > time. This would speak against dropping it in the backend. > see also http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14106. > > Yeah, sorry, brain misfire. > As for created two versions of EmitLocation, I can do that of course, but > it seems to be an unnecessary duplication of code to me. What would the > benefit be? Is it about the cost of the “hidden" 3rd argument? > > I have no particular preference either way really. > > > Also please update the comment to not reference internal apple clang > versions and instead reference svn revisions (or, instead and better, just > describe the changes). > > done. (I’ll send out a new patch after we reached a consensus about what > to best do with emitLocation()). > > Sorry for the delay, I'm wondering if there's a way to look at the location in the backend - even without the column information to make a determination here. I'll probably look into it before putting this in though. -eric
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
