[cfe-dev] Patch for IdentifierResolver

[Chris Lattner]

On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote:

> Steve Naroff wrote:
>>>>> How about having MultiTypedefDecl, MultiFileVarDecl and
>>>>> MultiBlockVarDecl, like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> class MultiTypedefDecl : public TypedefDecl, public  
>>>>> MultiDeclarator {
>>>>>
>>>>> only used for multi declarations ? MultiDeclarator will contain
>>>>> getNextDeclarator().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this relationship is interesting enough to call out  
>>>> in the hierarchy. In fact, after speaking briefly with Chris, it  
>>>> might be nice to consider removing the NextDeclarator field  
>>>> entirely. We could make the list a responsibility of the client.  
>>>> For example, we could change FunctionDecl to maintain the decl  
>>>> list explicitly. If we did this, we could unify iteration with  
>>>> parameters (which would simplify the API).
>>>
>>> To reiterate, I really don't think we need to preserve  
>>> 'NextDeclarator'.  There is no current client of it (AFAIK), and  
>>> there are more efficient ways to represent it if we ever need it  
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> From a compiler's perspective, the difference between
>
> int x,y;
>
> and
>
> int x;
> int y;
>
> is meaningless, but for a source code analysis/refactoring tool it'd  
> be useful to keep the AST close to the source code.
>
> Assuming that you want to distinguish grouped decls without  
> NextDeclarator, how would it work ?

Hi Argiris,

I really think we should just remove this, and add it if actually  
needed by a client.  While we could probably merge this in somehow in  
a low-cost way, it would increase the complexity of the code, which is  
itself a loss...

-Chris