gribozavr2 accepted this revision.
gribozavr2 added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:227-254
+namespace llvm {
+template <> struct DenseMapInfo<clang::NestedNameSpecifierLoc> {
+ using FirstInfo = DenseMapInfo<clang::NestedNameSpecifier *>;
+ using SecondInfo = DenseMapInfo<void *>;
+
+ static inline NestedNameSpecifierLoc getEmptyKey() {
+ return NestedNameSpecifierLoc(FirstInfo::getEmptyKey(),
----------------
eduucaldas wrote:
> Inpired on the definition of:
> * `template<typename T> struct DenseMapInfo<T*>`
> * `template<typename T, typename U> struct DenseMapInfo<std::pair<T,U>>`
>
> Please tell me if this is all silly.
This is the right way to use DenseMapInfo, just move the specialization into
the file that defines NNSLoc.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:892
- syntax::NestedNameSpecifier *
- BuildNestedNameSpecifier(const NestedNameSpecifierLoc &QualifierLoc) {
+ bool TraverseNestedNameSpecifierLoc(NestedNameSpecifierLoc QualifierLoc) {
if (!QualifierLoc)
----------------
Please add a comment that explains why we override Traverse for NNSLoc instead
of WalkUpFrom.
Something like:
To build syntax tree nodes for NestedNameSpecifierLoc we override Traverse
instead of WalkUpFrom because we want to traverse the children ourselves and
build a list instead of a nested tree of name specifier prefixes.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85439/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85439
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
