[PATCH] D148997: [clang] Add a new annotation token: annot_repl_input_end

[Ben Barham via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

bnbarham added a comment.

In D148997#4559788 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4559788>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:

> I'd prefer to avoid adding a new flag. Is there a way to see how does the diff looks like?

You mean for a new flag? I don't have one prepared, but it would basically just be adding an extra check where `isIncrementalProcessingEnabled` is currently used to skip resetting `CurLexer` and `TUScope`, ie. . I don't believe we'd want any difference in parsing in Swift's clang importer use case.

> Maybe it would make more sense to use the `annot_repl_input_end` token? If the token name does not capture well the generic use-case I am happy to change it to something better.

The issue is that all these actions (and the parser checks) can run with and without `isIncrementalProcessingEnabled`, so they would need to check both `eof` and `annot_repl_input_end`. For some concrete locations (but no where near complete):
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df6b35e329ebecad6dc3bfb83183e482eb7a0020/clang/lib/Frontend/FrontendActions.cpp#L82
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df6b35e329ebecad6dc3bfb83183e482eb7a0020/clang/lib/Frontend/FrontendActions.cpp#L955
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df6b35e329ebecad6dc3bfb83183e482eb7a0020/clang/lib/Frontend/Rewrite/InclusionRewriter.cpp#L542
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/df6b35e329ebecad6dc3bfb83183e482eb7a0020/clang/lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp#L4070


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997