baloghadamsoftware added a comment. In D58367#1425922 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58367#1425922>, @Szelethus wrote:
> As I understand it, this solution could be used to entirely get rid of the > current bugreporter visitor structure (at least for checkers), right? The > discussion seems to conclude that this is just as general, far easier to > understand, far easier to implement, and is basically better in every regard > without an (//edit: significant//) hit to performance? Because if so, I'm > definitely against supporting two concurrent implementations of the same > functionality -- in fact, we should even just forbid checkers to add custom > visitors. I am not sure we could get rid of all the checker-specific visitors, but most probably many of them. However, there are cases where we should find something "last" which is best done bottom-up. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58367/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58367 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
