[cfe-commits] [PATCH] x3 More matcher patches

[Sam Panzer]

I also noticed that a hasDeclaration matcher which serves a different
purpose. I think the new hasDecl matcher needs a new name...


On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:

> Here's a new version of the DeclStmt patch. Changes include:
>  - Fixed comments by declCountIs and hasSingleDecl
>  - Added hasDecl in the spirit of hasArgument
>  - Changed the loop to std::distance (std::advance in hasDecl)
>  - Added a few more test cases.
>
> And to explain the for loop in the test case for hasSingleDecl, I
> discovered that Clang explodes some DeclStmts with multiple declarations
> such as these:
>   int a, b;  // toplevel declarations
> According to the AST dump, Clang treats this line as two separate
> DeclStmts, rather than one DeclStmt with two Decls. This also happens to
> declarations inside namespaces, and I'm not really sure where else. Maybe
> someone else has a better idea how to describe when the AST doesn't reflect
> the source the same way?
>
> The other patch will be sent on a fork of the previous discussion.
> Any new comments?
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> +  // We could use Node.decl_begin() - Node.decl_end(), but that
>> relies on
>> >> +  // decl_iterator just being a Decl**.
>> >> +  unsigned DeclCount = 0;
>> >> +  for (DeclStmt::const_decl_iterator I = Node.decl_begin(),
>> >> +       E = Node.decl_end(); I != E; ++I)
>> >> +    ++DeclCount;
>> >>
>> >> (after chatting with Chandler about this on irc):
>> >> I'd use Node.decl_end() - Node.decl_begin(). If it ever becomes a
>> >> non-const-time operation, the iterator will not implement the
>> >> interface and break compilation, so we'll notice.
>> >
>> > But do we need to notice? If the original algorithm written here is
>> > linear it seems like constant time size is not a requirement.
>> >
>> > If that's the case, then std::distance just DTRT - constant time for
>>
>> I personally am fine with arguing for std::distance. My point is not
>> to write the loop :)
>>
>> > random access iterators, linear for others. (alternatively, provide
>> > Node::decl_size that does the same thing - but I can understand the
>> > concern of providing a (possibly in the future) non-constant-time
>> > size, though at that point you could remove size & go back & examine
>> > each client to see which ones care about that)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regardless of that, I think your comment is wrong in 2 ways: first,
>> >> there's a typo :) Second, that the iterator happens to come down do
>> >> being a pointer has nothing to do with its contract. It either
>> >> provides random access or not.
>> >>
>> >> +/// \brief Matches expressions that match InnerMatcher after implicit
>> casts are
>> >> +/// stripped off.
>> >> +AST_MATCHER_P(Expr, ignoreImplicitCasts,
>> >> +              internal::Matcher<Expr>, InnerMatcher) {
>> >> +  return InnerMatcher.matches(*Node.IgnoreImpCasts(), Finder,
>> Builder);
>> >> +}
>> >>
>> >> I think we should implement the equivalent based on ignoreParenImpCast
>> >> first, as that's what I've seen us needing much more often (we can
>> >> implement this one, too, of course ;)
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> /Manuel
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>> >>> <div>Attached are three more small matcher patches. One fixes another
>> >>> rename typo (AnyOf --> anyOf) that was similar to the previous
>> >>> allOf patch. The second patch adds more inspection for
>> >>> declarationStatement matchers, making it easier to look at single
>> >>> declarations directly. The third patch adds expression matchers which
>> >>> call IgnoreXXXCasts() before  applying their
>> >>> sub-matchers.</div><div><br></div>For future reference, should I
>> >>> continue splitting up these patches for
>> >>> review?<div><br></div><div>-Sam</div>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> >>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cfe-commits mailing list
>> >> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120716/f9db1ae9/attachment.html>