| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
|
|
Summary:
The goal is to allow analyses such as clang-tidy checks to run on a
subset of the AST, e.g. "only on main-file decls" for interactive tools.
Today, these become "problematically global" by running RecursiveASTVisitors
rooted at the TUDecl, or by navigating up via ASTContext::getParent().
The scope is restricted using a set of top-level-decls that RecursiveASTVisitors
should be rooted at. This also applies to the visitor that populates the
parent map, and so the top-level-decls are considered to have no parents.
This patch makes the traversal scope a mutable property of ASTContext.
The more obvious way to do this is to pass the top-level decls to
relevant functions directly, but this has some problems:
- it's error-prone: accidentally mixing restricted and unrestricted
scopes is a performance trap. Interleaving multiple analyses is
common (many clang-tidy checks run matchers or RAVs from matcher callbacks)
- it doesn't map well to the actual use cases, where we really do want
*all* traversals to be restricted.
- it involves a lot of plumbing in parts of the code that don't care
about traversals.
This approach was tried out in D54259 and D54261, I wanted to like it
but it feels pretty awful in practice.
Caveats: to get scope-limiting behavior of RecursiveASTVisitors, callers
have to call the new TraverseAST(Ctx) function instead of TraverseDecl(TU).
I think this is an improvement to the API regardless.
Reviewers: klimek, ioeric
Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54309
llvm-svn: 346847
|
