[PATCH] D14506: Porting shouldVisitImplicitCode to DataRecursiveASTVisitor.

[Craig, Ben via cfe-commits]

I'm fine with this approach.  How about I leave the file in place, but 
replace the contents with a "using DataRecursiveASTVisitor = 
RecursiveASTVisitor;" and see what breaks?  That way I won't need to go 
through a large retrofit.

On 11/16/2015 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> Rather than trying to maintain the horrible duplication between 
> DataRecursiveASTVisitor and RecursiveASTVisitor, can we just delete 
> DataRecursiveASTVisitor? RecursiveASTVisitor is data-recursive too 
> these days (and has a smarter implementation than 
> DataRecursiveASTVisitor's from what I can see), but doesn't yet apply 
> data recursion in so many cases.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com 
> <mailto:akyrtzi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     LGTM.
>
>     > On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Ben Craig
>     <ben.craig at codeaurora.org <mailto:ben.craig at codeaurora.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > bcraig added a comment.
>     >
>     > Ping.  Note that the test is basically a copy / paste job, and
>     the new code in DataRecursiveASTVisitor.h is a very direct
>     translation from the 'regular' RecursiveASTVisitor.h.
>     >
>     >
>     > http://reviews.llvm.org/D14506
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20151116/f02087a1/attachment.html>