klimek added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Frontend/PrecompiledPreamble.h:124 +/// CanReusePreamble + AddImplicitPreamble to make use of it. +class PrecompiledPreamble { +public: ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > klimek wrote: > > If a user doesn't care about the things above this class, can we move those > > into an extra header? > Do you have any suggestions of where to put it and how to call it? > I didn't think it's a good idea to put something like 'PreambleFileHash.h' > and 'TempPCHFile.h' into 'include/clang/Frontend/'. (Given that they are > essential an implementation detail of PrecompiledPreamble, exposing them in > public include folders seems like a bad idea). TempPCHFile looks like something we just want to put into the .cc file and store as a unique_ptr. PreambleFileHash seems fine as an extra header. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Frontend/PrecompiledPreamble.h:157-160 + /// We don't expose PCHFile to avoid changing interface when we'll add an + /// in-memory PCH, so we declare this function as friend so that it has access + /// to PCHFile field. + friend void AddImplicitPreamble(CompilerInvocation &CI, ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > klimek wrote: > > Why not make it a member instead? > To keep BuildPreamble, CanReusePreamble and AddImplicitPreamble close to each > other. > I.e. PrecompiledPreamble only stores data used by these functions. > > We could make all of those members, of course. Do you think that would make > API better? Generally, if these are closely coupled to implementation details of PrecompiledPreample, I think that coupling is strong enough to warrant making them members. On the other hand, making some functions members, and others non-members, and putting them next to each other in the .cc file also would work. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34287 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits