dexonsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/SourceManager.cpp:121-127
llvm::Optional<llvm::MemoryBufferRef>
ContentCache::getBufferOrNone(DiagnosticsEngine &Diag, FileManager &FM,
SourceLocation Loc) const {
if (auto *B = getBufferPointer(Diag, FM, Loc))
return B->getMemBufferRef();
return None;
}
----------------
[Highlighting this for the other comment.]
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/SourceManager.cpp:705
+llvm::Optional<llvm::MemoryBufferRef>
+SourceManager::getMemoryBufferForFileOrNone(const FileEntry *File) {
const SrcMgr::ContentCache *IR = getOrCreateContentCache(File);
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> Would it make sense to rename this to the slightly less verbose
> `getMemoryBufferOrNone` now that it takes just the File as an argument? Or
> maybe even `getBufferOrNone` like the method in `ContentCache`.
There's already a `SourceManager::getBufferOrNone` (see line 121 of this file,
which I am highlighting). I'd rather keep the current weird naming to make it
easy to grep for and eventually delete.
This function shouldn't really exist since it's at the wrong layer
(`FileEntry*` -> `MemoryBuffer` is a `FileManager` concept). The problem is
that the `SourceManager` owns the memory buffer so this is the only way to get
access to it. Once I sink the content cache / `MemoryBuffer` ownership into the
`FileManager`, we can delete this entirely.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89429/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89429
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
