nridge added a comment. In D92290#2460748 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92290#2460748>, @sammccall wrote:
> my manager was appalled when we added it... :-) > Does this enable some future work, or is it reasonable to evaluate this patch > in isolation? I was inspired to do this by a work-in-progress patch I have to fix https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/451, for which I need to make `Sema` available in a similar way. That patch isn't quite ready for review (there are some crashes / assertion failures that I need to iron out), but I posted what I have so far at D93522 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93522> if you're curious. > Here it's a mandatory input, and the alternative is cluttering a couple of > layers of purely-private interfaces, so this seems like a lot of magic to > avoid a fairly small amount of awkwardness. I agree that there is no fundamental need to use `Context`, it just seemed convenient (and hey, `ASTContext` even has `Context` in its name :-)). I could just pass the `ASTContext` as a parameter to `targetDecl()` and other relevant functions. Perhaps, with a view to eventually needing `Sema` as well, I should just pass `ParsedAST` instead? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92290/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92290 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
