I'm fine with this approach. How about I leave the file in place, but
replace the contents with a "using DataRecursiveASTVisitor =
RecursiveASTVisitor;" and see what breaks? That way I won't need to go
through a large retrofit.
On 11/16/2015 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
Rather than trying to maintain the horrible duplication between
DataRecursiveASTVisitor and RecursiveASTVisitor, can we just delete
DataRecursiveASTVisitor? RecursiveASTVisitor is data-recursive too
these days (and has a smarter implementation than
DataRecursiveASTVisitor's from what I can see), but doesn't yet apply
data recursion in so many cases.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyr...@gmail.com
<mailto:akyr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
LGTM.
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Ben Craig
<ben.cr...@codeaurora.org <mailto:ben.cr...@codeaurora.org>> wrote:
>
> bcraig added a comment.
>
> Ping. Note that the test is basically a copy / paste job, and
the new code in DataRecursiveASTVisitor.h is a very direct
translation from the 'regular' RecursiveASTVisitor.h.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D14506
>
>
>
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
