strimo378 added a comment. Yes, I have a need for these setters :) but I cannot decide if the LLVM project in general or other people could profit from it.
I am working on a C++-to-C transpiler based on clang. Other clang-based tool typically modify the intput file based on FileLocation information. In contrast, I follow a constructive approach with AST print. The transpiler is organized in many small passes that transform the clang AST until at the end I can output the C code via AST print. Some notable passes are - Remove unused AST decls (simplifies AST for non-trivial input) - Resolve templates (is also useful standalone to remove templates from a C++ program) - Resolve namespaces - Move nested records - Convert methods to functions - etc. For transforming the AST, I often need to replace Types and regenerate the corresponding TypeLoc. I tried for over one year to recreate AST nodes when a setter methods that was missing but that caused a lot of work and instabilities for maintaining cross references. For that reason, I now insert a new setter method when needed and until now surprising less setter methods are missing. For me it takes 5-10 min per version upgrade to port the changes, so it is not a big deal for me if you refuse them. I have some other AST modification in place for removing templates information but nothing complex... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158055/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
