omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192#532981, @ioeric wrote:
> - You mentioned a design doc in the summary; maybe also include a link to it? Done. > - It would make the review easier if you could separate the migration of > clang-rename into another patch...I think clang-refactor is really the > interesting part here. And maybe also add a small dummy sub-module as an > example demonstrating how to add a new sub-module, which I believe will be > helpful for future developers. (See also tool-template > <https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang-tools-extra/tree/master/tool-template> > which exists for the same purpose.) I am not against it, but I do not think that an empty tool, which just introduces the binary without any code would be reasonable. This is basically why I wanted it to be all-in-place. The whole changelist doesn't introduce anything really new, so I assume it might be fine. But if you are not okay with it I can split. ================ Comment at: TemplatedClassFunction.cpp:1 @@ +1,2 @@ +template <typename T> +class A { ---------------- ioeric wrote: > What is this file for? This is a test. It is the reason clang-refactor rename fails :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
