Athosvk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41102#1028760, @juliehockett wrote:
> If you take a look at the follow-on patch to this (D43341 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D43341>), you'll see that that is where the pointer > is added in (since it is irrelevant to the mapper portion, as it cannot be > filled out until the information has been reduced). The back references to > children and whatnot are also added there. Oops! I'll have a look! In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41102#1028760, @juliehockett wrote: > The USRs are kept for serialization purposes -- given the modular nature of > the design, the goal is to be able to write out the bitstream and have it be > consumable with all necessary information. Since we can't write out pointers > (and it would be useless if we did, since they would change as soon as the > file was read in), we maintain the USRs to have a means of re-finding the > referenced declaration. What I was referring to was the storing of a USR per reference. Of course, serializing pointers wouldn't work, but what I mean is that what we used as a USR was stored in what was pointed to, not in the reference that tells what we are pointing to. To be a little more concise, a RecordInfo has pointers to the FuntionInfo for its member functions. Upon serialization, the RecordInfo queries the USR of those functions. A function being referenced multiple times remains to only have the USR stored. If I understand correctly, you currently save the USR for time an InfoType references another InfoType. Anyhow, don't pay too much attention to that comment, it's all meant as a minor thing. It sure is looking good so far! https://reviews.llvm.org/D41102 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
