bnbarham added a comment. In D148997#4561620 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4561620>, @v.g.vassilev wrote:
> So, in that case we should bring back the boolean flag for incremental > processing and keep the `IncrementalExtensions` LanguageOption separate. In > that case `IncrementalExtensions` would mean that we must turn on incremental > processing for managing lifetime and only use the language option when > extending the parsing logic. However, I think the problem would be what to do > with the `tok::eof` and `tok::annot_repl_input_end`? I'd probably need > @aaron.ballman or @rsmith here... Would you be happy to make that change, or should I put it up? Separating the options and what to do about the token in general could be separate PRs. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
