rjmccall added a comment. In D96033#2695622 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033#2695622>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> Would it make sense to have each `Decl` point to its owning PTU, similarly to > what we do for the owning module (`Decl::getOwningModule`)? I think that's the interface we want, but actually storing the PTU in every `Decl` that way is probably prohibitive in memory overhead; we need some more compact way to recover it. But maybe it's okay to do something like that if we can spare a bit in `Decl`. Richard, thoughts here? > In terms of future steps, do you prefer to try implementing what you > suggested as part of this patch? I would prefer to land this patch and then > add what we discussed here rather than keep piling to this already bulky > patch. It depends on how much you think your patch is working towards that architecture. Since this is just infrastructure without much in the way of Sema/IRGen changes, it's probably fine. I haven't reviewed it yet, though, sorry. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
