aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Lex/Preprocessor.h:1782-1785
void enableIncrementalProcessing(bool value = true) {
- IncrementalProcessing = value;
+ // FIXME: Drop this interface.
+ const_cast<LangOptions &>(getLangOpts()).IncrementalExtensions = value;
}
----------------
v.g.vassilev wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > v.g.vassilev wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > We should be able to drop this as part of this patch, right? (I think
> > > > you can modify the `IncrementalAction` object so that it calls
> > > > `CI.getLangOpts().IncrementalExtensions = true;` if needed, but you're
> > > > passing the cc1 flag to the invocation and so I think you can maybe
> > > > remove this call entirely.)
> > > I wanted to do this is a separate commit. I am worried of breaking
> > > downstream users. I remember long time ago @akyrtzi was using this logic.
> > >
> > > There are also a bunch of tests in clang and lldb.
> > > I wanted to do this is a separate commit. I am worried of breaking
> > > downstream users.
> >
> > Downstream users have no expectation of this interface remaining stable to
> > begin with, so I'd rather we remove the code unless someone speaks up with
> > a concrete technical problem. That said, I'm fine doing it in a separate
> > commit so that it's easier to raise awareness for downstreams if you think
> > this will be disruptive to them.
> I'd prefer doing it in a separate commit. This patch is bulky and we may need
> to revert it making all bots happy. That'd be probably make downstream
> consumers green/red for a while and generate a some email traffic ;)
Doing it as a separate commit is fine by me.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:5395-5400
+ // FIXME: Tell the user this is unsupported.
+ if (!Stmts.empty()) {
+ unsigned ID = Actions.getDiagnostics().getCustomDiagID(
+ DiagnosticsEngine::Error, "Unsupported statement on the global scope");
+ Actions.Diag(Stmts.back()->getBeginLoc(), ID);
+ }
----------------
Why is this using a custom diagnostic instead of adding a typical diagnostic to
DiagnosticParseKinds.td?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127284/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127284
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
