[cfe-commits] r160265 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Tooling/CommandLineClangTool.h lib/Tooling/CMakeLists.txt lib/Tooling/CommandLineClangTool.cpp test/CMakeLists.txt test/Tooling/clang-ast-dump.cpp tools/CMakeLists.txt tools/Makefile tools/clan

[Alexander Kornienko]

And here's an additional diff with -ast-list option.


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Alexander Kornienko <
>> alexfh at google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> High-level design of the new feature:
>> >> >> Are we sure that "substring of the node" is the desired interface?
>> Why
>> >> >> not regexp? (heck, I'd love a dynamic matcher expression :P).
>> >> >
>> >> > Substring is quite useful, obvious and easy to implement. Regexps are
>> >> > better, but this could be in one of the next iterations. Dynamic
>> matcher
>> >> > expressions would be great except that this would greatly increase
>> >> > skills
>> >> > threshold required to use this tool ;)
>> >>
>> >> Yea, I was not serious about the matcher expressions. And, in the case
>> >> of an extra tool, I'd have been fine with this. For Clang itself, I'm
>> >> less sure that we're as happy to go and change stuff around.
>> >
>> > Matching against substring is mostly a specific case of regular
>> expression
>> > matching. So this change (if anyone needs it) can be fully backwards
>> > compatible (if I'm not wrong, qualified names usually don't contain
>> special
>> > characters used in regular expressions).
>> >
>> >> Doug? Any comment on how happy we are with having a command line
>> >> interface we know we'll want to change later?
>> >
>> > Extend, basically.
>>
>> Yep. I'm in principle fine, but want to get input from people who have
>> more experience how quickly others rely on specific semantics of
>> command line flags.
>>
>> >> >> -ASTConsumer *CreateASTPrinter(raw_ostream *OS);
>> >> >> +ASTConsumer *CreateASTPrinter(raw_ostream *OS, const std::string
>> >> >> &FilterString);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any reasons not to use StringRef?
>> >> >
>> >> > The reason is that performance issues are not going to appear in this
>> >> > code,
>> >> > which is invoked once per program execution.
>> >>
>> >> My impression is that Clang has a "use StringRef unless you have a
>> >> good reason not to". With that in place, not using StringRef makes
>> >> readers of the code stop and think why you did it.
>> >
>> > I didn't find this specific rule, but there's no reason not to believe
>> your
>> > words yet ;) Changed interface to use StringRef.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> +  return new ASTPrinter(out, false, false, FilterString);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here, and below. Please use /*Name=*/ for context-less constants.
>> >> >
>> >> > Reasonable. Done.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Additionally, it looks like ListAll is actually never true. Isn't
>> this
>> >> >> a special case of filtering, where all nodes match, anyway?
>> >> >> If we need ListAll, I'd also propose to use a extra RAV
>> implementation
>> >> >> that uses VisitNamedDecl, as it doesn't have anything else in common
>> >> >> with the visitation and really distracts from the more complex
>> >> >> matching case.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok, moved to a separate class. I think it's useful to have a
>> >> > "-ast-list-decls" option for finding out what nodes can be filtered.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not saying it's not useful, but it's adding a second feature in
>> >> this patch :)
>> >
>> > Both features are strongly related. Is it a bad idea to add them
>> > simultaneously?
>>
>> I think it will make the review easier if we don't mix up the feature
>> design discussion about the list-decl feature with the code review of
>> the filtering change, which Doug already said he's in favor of.
>>
> Sounds reasonable. Here's a separate diff for -ast-dump-filter option.
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> /Manuel
>>
>> >
>> >> +      if (filterMatches(D)) {
>> >> +        Out.changeColor(llvm::raw_ostream::BLUE) <<
>> >> +            (Dump ? "Dumping " : "Printing ") << getName(D) << ":\n";
>> >> +        Out.resetColor();
>> >> +        if (Dump)
>> >> +          D->dump(Out);
>> >> +        else
>> >> +          D->print(Out, /*Indentation=*/0,
>> /*PrintInstantiation=*/true);
>> >> +        return true;
>> >>
>> >> Please add a comment before the "return true" that explains that we
>> >> stop traversing child nodes in this case.
>> >
>> > Done.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> /Manuel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Alexander Kornienko
>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alexander Kornienko
>



-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Kornienko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120726/b0b8666b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ast-list.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6978 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120726/b0b8666b/attachment.obj>