djasper added a comment.
Ben: I am happy to have this as a separate tool until then. But if we go that
route, let's add very explicit comments about this so that people don't start
depending on it and we can actually remove it as easily as possible.
Alex: I don't think there will be a significant performance difference between
implementing this as recursive AST visitor or implementing this with matchers.
Even if you have multiple matchers, a single run over the AST would suffice. If
there is a performance difference, that's probably something we should fix.
It's hard to make an estimate on which version would be more concise without
actually comparing both versions (I would bet on the AST matcher version to be
more concise). However, an equally important point is that a single way to find
something in the AST is easier to understand and maintain then having two ways
to do it in the same tool.
================
Comment at: test/clang-reorder-fields/CStructAmbiguousName.cpp:6
@@ +5,3 @@
+struct Foo {
+ int x; // CHECK: int x;
+ double y; // CHECK: double y;
----------------
Have you thought about how to handle comments that surround these?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
