Re: [cdt-dev] LLVM Project Blog: A path forward for an LLVM toolchain on

[Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> CDT would have to switch to Clang's representation of AST. The AST  
> could still be represented by Java objects. Clang parser (probably in a  
> separate process to protect against memory leaks) would serialize its  
> representation of AST and CDT would deserialize it to Java. Converting  
> Clang's AST to the current CDT AST representation is probably not  
> practical. Changing CDT to a different AST representation is a massive  
> undertaking that would touch a lot of code, both in core and in UI. 
>  
> A potential showstopper for the whole plan is existence of such  
> features of Clang bindings that would not allow index bindings to  
> implement the same set of interfaces as the AST bindings. I don't know  
> whether such features exist or not. 

Would the distinction between AST and index bindings still need
to exist in this hypothetical design? As far as I'm aware,
clang's AST is for the whole translation unit, i.e. it includes
information about included header files.

Regards,
Nate