bnbarham added a comment. In D148997#4561577 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4561577>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
>> My other concern here is that it seems our use cases are somewhat different, >> eg. we wouldn't want any parsing differences and while I don't know why this >> is yet, the removal of: > > I think I understand now. We basically want a mode which keeps some of the > clang objects alive and ready to process more input. And on top, for > clang-repl we want to enable some special parsing mode for the top-level > statement declarations. Yeah, I'd say that sums it up pretty well. >> // Skip over the EOF token, flagging end of previous input for incremental >> // processing >> if (PP.isIncrementalProcessingEnabled() && Tok.is(tok::eof)) >> ConsumeToken(); >> >> is causing issues for us as well. > > Yes, that now seems to be moved on the user side as we thought it would be > dead code. We can bring that one back if that's the only issue you see with > that approach. I think it would make sense to bring it back under the mode you spoke about above, yeah 👍 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
