omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192#533198, @ioeric wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192#533174, @omtcyfz wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192#532981, @ioeric wrote: > > > > > - It would make the review easier if you could separate the migration of > > > clang-rename into another patch... > > > > > > Another point is that if I try to separate the migration - what do I do > > about USREngine? USREngine is basically the core of clang-refactor at the > > moment and I can't detach it from clang-rename at the same time. > > > I'm not sure why USREngine is the core of clang-refactor. It seems to me that > USREngine is more closely tied to clang-rename than to clang-refactor. At > least USREngine is not essential to all refactor tools, and it is more like a > library that sub-modules can use. It is essential to all of the tools I wrote about in design doc. Well, are you proposing to create an "empty" `clang-refactor` binary in one patch and adding meaningful code in the other? I am not sure if just creating `clang-refactor/driver/Driver.cpp` with `main`, which doesn't do anything is a good idea, but if you think it is - I'll do that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
