Range-based for loops remain messed up -- I'm just disabling the test here and turning a blind eye.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
TODOs in the test for known issues.
I may switch the approach to getting the variable type (on examination, this isn't working quite as well as I'd thought) but for now I think it's okay. I had an earlier approach though that may work better overall -- I'd been thinking this would work better, but as you can see in the null check for type information, I think I missed a key point.
Anyways, what'd really been vexing me was `int i, j` which I think I handle passably well now. There's obviously room for improvement, but given I've been going at this for a couple days now, I thought it best to checkpoint where I was.
This also includes some related framework changes to fix bumps I was running into. Overall the tool should operate a bit more smoothly with these changes. There are still issues with overlapping replacements, but I think it's primarily with range-based for loops which I just need to take some time to fix.
This replaces the use of `isExpansionInMainFile` with instead taking the list of input files, and only touching them. This doesn't keep `isExpansionInMainFile` because it should be redundant, and as such it'd be easy to forget. Unless it starts being a performance issue, it's probably better to omit.
This picks up a newer version of LLVM and the LLVM Bazel integration.
The big change here is that we can configure the LLVM targets that are
built, which allows us to dramatically reduce the build costs by
focusing on a couple of CPUs for the time being.
There are a few API updates needed as well.
This also rotates the cache version so we start with a clean Bazel cache
from here. Otherwise we'd potentially pay the cost of carrying around
stale bits of LLVM endlessly.
Jon Meow
