v.g.vassilev added a comment. In D148997#4559646 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4559646>, @bnbarham wrote:
>> Are there other users of incremental processing mode, other than the REPL / >> IncrementalParser? > > It seems Swift's clang importer also uses incremental processing mode, I'm > assuming to keep the `TUScope` and `CurLexer` alive after EOF. We also end up > using the same context with various actions, which leads to a few hangs as > there's various checks for `eof` only, eg. `ReadPCHAndPreprocessAction`, > `PreprocessOnlyAction`, and `RewriteIncludesAction`. There's also quite a few > places in the parser that only check for `eof` as well (I just grepped for > `Tok.isNot(tok::eof)`). > > Should these all be updated to handle `annot_repl_input_end` or should we > instead have a different flag that we set for this purpose instead of > co-opting `isIncrementalProcessingEnabled`? I'd prefer to avoid adding a new flag. Is there a way to see how does the diff looks like? Maybe it would make more sense to use the `annot_repl_input_end` token? If the token name does not capture well the generic use-case I am happy to change it to something better. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
