search for: currenttopnod

...gt; it's needed (that is in the preincrement operator). The only open > question would be: how do we mark the children iterator invalid > before its first use. This does sound like a useful use-case, but I am uncomfortable with making DepthFirstIterator any heavier (by adding "CurrentTopNode" to it), is there another way to solve this problem? > The second one (poi) have to be applied anyway, as it fixes a > compile bug rendering po_ext_iterator currently unusable. Thanks, applied! http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090706/080251.html -Chri...

Hi @llvm, below is a copy of a message I sent to clang a hour before. I guess it's more appropriate here. --snip-- While trying to eleminate as much std::tr1::function as possible I stumbled over a design flaw in llvm::df_iterator. Consider the following code: void for_all_stmts(Stmt* S, const std::tr1::function<void(Stmt*)>& fn) { if (S) { fn(S); for

Hi Olaf, This patch looks good to me. I just have a few minor comments: > + inline df_iterator() { CurrentTopNode = 0; /* End is when stack is empty */ } Should the comment here be updated to say that the End is reached when the stack is empty and when CurrentTopNode is null? > + inline void toNext() > + { LLVM style puts the open brace on the same line as the function name. > + inline _S...

Hi @clang and @llvm, attached you'll find a patch dealing with some iterator issues I already mentioned in both lists. Since there was no reaction I cross-post again - now IMHO production-ready code. The patch is considered to get checked-in out of the box. It should not affect the behavior of existing and working code. I really need it for clang AST processing. Changes: 1. Both