omtcyfz added a comment.
The patch looks fine to me (though I'm not sure if there are no new tests; if
they are interface changes should be applied).
If everyone seems to be in favor of such changes, I'm OK with it, but in
general I think it makes things more complicated and I'm not sure if it's
necessary at the moment; I expressed my ideas about it in comments to the other
patch. But if that's what the common use-case is... So, //TL;DR// I personally
don't see why one would want to rename multiple things at once while we still
can't rename a single symbol correctly in too many cases...
P.S. it seems logical to me to support `-offset` option in `-rename-all`, too.
And introducing `-rename-all` without actually supporting multiple renaming
actions "at once" seems weird to me, too.
================
Comment at: clang-rename/tool/ClangRename.cpp:226
@@ +225,3 @@
+ if (argc > 1) {
+ typedef int (*MainFunction)(int, const char *[]);
+ MainFunction Func = StringSwitch<MainFunction>(argv[1])
----------------
use `std::function` here?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21814
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
