================ @@ -0,0 +1,406 @@ +//===- TUSummaryEncoding.cpp --------------------------------------------===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +#include "JSONFormatImpl.h" + +#include "clang/Analysis/Scalable/EntityLinker/EntitySummaryEncoding.h" +#include "clang/Analysis/Scalable/EntityLinker/TUSummaryEncoding.h" + +namespace clang::ssaf { + +//---------------------------------------------------------------------------- +// JSONEntitySummaryEncoding +//---------------------------------------------------------------------------- + +namespace { + +class JSONEntitySummaryEncoding : public EntitySummaryEncoding { +public: + explicit JSONEntitySummaryEncoding(Value Data) : Data(std::move(Data)) {} + + void + patch(const std::map<EntityId, EntityId> &EntityResolutionTable) override { + llvm_unreachable("not implemented"); + } + + Value Data; ---------------- steakhal wrote:
I know that this `Value` type is `json::Value`, and I also understand that it's a frequently spelled type. However, I think spelling `json::Value` in this class would make it more descriptive. For example, when I'm in a class, I'm usually in a context of a "header" (I know it's not the case here). The name `Value` is also overly generic. This preference is really subjective, and I can't give you a well-defined rule for when I prefer this or that. (The other names, types inside this class are good) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/183401 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
