dang marked an inline comment 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,
----------------
dang wrote:
> 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.
I also think that the `AST_BLOCK_HASH` and the `SIGNATURE` are enough
information already. In most cases you can deduce if the control block was
different by just checking if the signatures were different and the ASTs the
same.
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
