v.g.vassilev added a comment. In D148997#4607833 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4607833>, @bnbarham wrote:
> In D148997#4561620 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997#4561620>, @v.g.vassilev > wrote: > >> So, in that case we should bring back the boolean flag for incremental >> processing and keep the `IncrementalExtensions` LanguageOption separate. In >> that case `IncrementalExtensions` would mean that we must turn on >> incremental processing for managing lifetime and only use the language >> option when extending the parsing logic. However, I think the problem would >> be what to do with the `tok::eof` and `tok::annot_repl_input_end`? I'd >> probably need @aaron.ballman or @rsmith here... > > Would you be happy to make that change, or should I put it up? Separating the > options and what to do about the token in general could be separate PRs. If you could do it would be better as it would capture better your concrete use case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148997 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
