kbobyrev added a comment. In D90588#2368021 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90588#2368021>, @sammccall wrote:
> This doesn't feel quite right to me - we're going to need to get PP > conditional regions, include blocks etc from the ParsedAST (they're not in > ASTContext). > My sense is that we'll need a fairly random subset of ParsedAST, and so > ParsedAST is a reasonable abstraction unless it's hard to produce for tests. > But it isn't! > > What's the motivation for this change? Aww that comment is regarding `syntax::buildSyntaxTree` weren't you? I thought this was about `getFoldingRanges` API... Sorry. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90588/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90588 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
