On Thursday, August 22, 2013, John McCall wrote: > On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Craig Topper > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > Author: ctopper > > Date: Thu Aug 22 02:09:37 2013 > > New Revision: 188991 > > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=188991&view=rev > > Log: > > Constify more uses of ASTContext&. No functional change. > > Is this actually useful? Are there interesting bugs we can catch by > distinguishing a const vs. a non-const ASTContext? > > I mean, having const AST nodes makes sense inasmuch as the AST is not > fully immutable after construction and it’s useful to record that consumers > are not supposed to modify the AST. But who actually cares about having > a const ASTContext? > > Because if it’s not catching real bugs, it’s just adding a ton of noise to > the > code, and we should just say that you always have a non-const ASTContext > the same way that you always pass around non-const llvm::Type*s. > > John.
Somebody in the past went to the trouble of marking thing const and mutable within the ASTContext. I believe with Type there are no methods that can actually modify it so its const by construction. I have no strong feelings either way. If people want me to stop ill stop. -- ~Craig
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
