rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34444#812836, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34444#812418, @rjmccall wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34444#795175, @v.g.vassilev wrote: > > > > > @rjmccall, thanks for the prompt and thorough reply. > > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34444#793311, @rjmccall wrote: > > > > > > > Okay. In that case, I see two problems, one major and one potentially > > > > major. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very accurate diagnosis which took us 5 years to discover on > > > an empirical basis ;) > > > > > > You could've asked at any time. :) > > > True. I am not really sure I knew what to ask, though ;) We're open to general "I'm trying to do this and having problems" questions on the mailing lists. You probably would've needed to know to CC me specifically, though; sadly, I can't keep up with all the lists I need to. >> That's quite brittle, because that code is only executed in a code path that >> only you are using, and you're not adding any tests. I would greatly prefer >> a change to IRGen's core assumptions, as suggested. > > I am open to changing this code as well. That should probably be another > review. I agree. Are you comfortable with blocking this review until that lands? It seems like it would significantly change this. >> I feel it is important that there be a way to inform an ASTConsumer that no >> further requests will be made of it, something other than calling its >> destructor. I would like you to make sure that the ASTConsumer interface >> supports that and that that call is not made too soon in your alternate >> processing mode. > > Do you have a preference of a name of this new interface? Maybe just "finish"? John. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
