[PATCH] First step towards adding a parent map to the ASTContext.

[Manuel Klimek]

Ping


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> Looking for a decision whether this is good as a first step, or what I
> should address before this can go in.
>
> Thanks!
> /Manuel
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vane, Edwin <edwin.vane at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>  Oops. I see it there now. Got lost in the context.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Manuel Klimek [mailto:klimek at google.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:37 AM
>> *To:* reviews+D267+public+2ab3cabee59f81bc at llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com
>> *Cc:* cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Jordan Rose; Vane, Edwin;
>> joey.gouly at arm.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] First step towards adding a parent map to the
>> ASTContext.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edwin Vane <edwin.vane at intel.com> wrote:*
>> ***
>>
>>
>>   I don't know anything about the analyzer but it sounds like it is what
>> is driving the design. For tools this all looks good if only a little
>> heavy-handed. Your suggestions for improvements that would make parent map
>> construction not touch the whole AST would be welcome.
>>
>>   Question: does MatchASTVisitor::matchesAncestorOf() need fixing to use
>> the new ASTContext::getParents()?****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> Yes, and that's part of the patch. At least if I didn't mess anything up?
>> :)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D267****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130226/06818133/attachment.html>