dang marked 4 inline comments as done.
dang added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Serialization/ASTBitCodes.h:396-400
/// Record code for the signature that identifiers this AST file.
SIGNATURE = 1,
+ /// Record code for the signature of the AST block.
+ AST_SIGNATURE,
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> These names and descriptions hard hard to differentiate. Is there another way
> of naming these that will be more clear?
>
> (One idea I had is to create `CONTROL_BLOCK_HASH` and `AST_BLOCK_HASH` and
> then `SIGNATURE` could just be their hash-combine, but maybe you have another
> idea.)
I kept the same hasher when computing both of these which mitigates the cost. I
don't see the need for also emitting a hash for the control block, there are
some optional records that are not in both the AST block and the control block
anyway.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80383/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80383
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
