vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35271#847306, @jklaehn wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35271#809159, @vsk wrote: > > > I wonder if it's possible to do away with the calls to 'updated()'... it > > seems strange that we initialize the same preprocessor repeatedly. Is there > > any way to finalize an ASTInfoCollector after ReadAST happens (or > > ASTReaderListeners in general)? > > > I can look into this but would prefer to do so in a different patch, as this > would require refactoring beyond this simple bug fix. Would it be okay to > land this patch as-is? Not having worked on this code I'm afraid I can't say. Usually it's a good idea to include a regression test. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35271 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
