riccibruno added a comment. In D65591#1625183 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591#1625183>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D65591#1625154 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591#1625154>, @riccibruno > wrote: > > > It seems that these two options are not exactly the same right ? The > > `ContainsError` bit is useful to quickly answer "Does this expression > > contains an invalid sub-expression" without doing the search, while adding > > an `ErrorExpr` node is useful to note that //this// sub-expression is > > invalid (and as Aaron says the hypothetical `ErrorExpr` node can carry more > > info about the error). > > > That's true. I had figured that answering "does this expression contain an > invalid sub-expression" could be implemented with a walk of the expression > tree rather than consuming a bit. To consumers of `containsErrors()`, there > shouldn't be much difference aside from performance (and that may be > sufficient reason to go with a bit, but I think I'd like to see performance > measurements that show the bit is necessary). Fair enough, especially given that IIRC there are not many bits left in these bit-fields classes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65591 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
