[cfe-dev] RFC: Easier AST Matching by Default

[Stephen Kelly via cfe-dev]

On 02/07/2020 23:07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
>
> On 02/07/2020 12:23, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:50 PM Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev 
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     > I don't want to be left with the blame of having my design
>>     half-implemented though :). There are bugs that I can not fix,
>>     partly because this is not concluded.
>>     >
>>     > If I can't move forward, then reversal is the only way (to give
>>     others the space to validate their designs) and I'd like to do
>>     that soon, so that this thread is not an open item for me (or
>>     anyone else) to deal with.
>>
>>     While I was previously in favor of switching the default because I
>>     thought it would lead to easier AST matching, I've been convinced by
>>     the concerns raised on the thread and I think that we should revert
>>     the default to AsIs. Despite that, Stephen: thank you for all your
>>     efforts on this and I'm sorry that the experiment hasn't worked out
>>     the way we had anticipated.
>>
>>
>> +1 - I think it was mainly too early to flip the default - we need to 
>> iterate on the mode (or an alternative, like what Richard and others 
>> suggested) before we try to flip defaults again.
>
> The change is here ready for review:
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D83076
>
> Sorry about the churn of introducing the change of default. At least 
> traverse() matchers introduced then will continue to work without 
> requiring extra churn.
>

The change has been pushed and buildbots seem happy with it so far.


Thanks,


Stephen.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200703/f4c6370f/attachment.html>