jansvoboda11 added a comment. In D142196#4068428 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142196#4068428>, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> I just checked and this "simplified" version of the callback would give us > enough information to implement all we need in ROOT (plus some, the `bool` > return value is nicer than temporarily playing with > `SuppressIncludeNotFoundError`). For an upstream test, I could implement a > unit test in `clang/unittests/Lex/PPCallbacksTest.cpp` or a "toy" tooling > where `#include <file.h?>` is ignored if `file.h` doesn't exist? What do you > think (assuming the general idea of adding this callback is fine)? Unit test in `clang/unittests/Lex/PPCallbacksTest.cpp` sounds good, go for it! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142196/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142196 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
