[PATCH] [libclang] getSizeOf/getAlignOf/getOffsetOf (was [PATCH] Expose AST Record layout attributes to libclang)

[Argyrios Kyrtzidis]

On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Loïc Jaquemet <loic.jaquemet at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 2013/4/1 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com>
> 
> +  /**
> +   * \brief One field in the record is an incomplete Type.
> +   */
> +  CXTypeLayoutError_IncompleteFieldParent = -6,
> +  /**
> +   * \brief One field in the record is a dependent Type.
> +   */
> +  CXTypeLayoutError_DependentFieldParent = -7
> +};
> 
> This was a bit confusing until I read
> 
> + * If in the record there is another field's type declaration that is
> + *   an incomplete type, CXTypeLayoutError_IncompleteFieldParent is returned.
> + * If in the record there is another field's type declaration that is
> + *   a dependent type, CXTypeLayoutError_DependentFieldParent is returned.
> + */
> 
> Could we change it to a simpler, "the parent record is incomplete/dependent" ?
> 
> 
> Given the radical code change, these confusing errors do not exists any more.
> 
>  
> 
> +/**
> + * \brief Returns 1 if the cursor specifies a Record member that is a bitfield.
> + */
> +CINDEX_LINKAGE unsigned clang_Cursor_isBitField(CXCursor C);
> 
> the convention that we use is "Returns non-zero if ..."
> 
> 
> done
> 
>  
> 
> +static long long visitRecordForNamedField(const RecordDecl *RD,
> +                                          StringRef FieldName) {
> +  for (RecordDecl::field_iterator I = RD->field_begin(), E = RD->field_end();
> +       I != E; ++I) {
> [..] 
> +  return visitRecordForNamedField(RD, FieldName);
> +}
> 
> I think there is a simpler and more efficient way to handle fields in anonymous records, something like this:
> Inside clang_Type_getOffsetOf():
> 
>   CXTranslationUnit TU =
>       static_cast<CXTranslationUnit>(const_cast<void*>(PT.data[1]));
>   ASTContext &Ctx = cxtu::getASTUnit(TU)->getASTContext();
>   IdentifierInfo *II = &Ctx.Idents.get(S);
>   DeclarationName FieldName(II);
>   RecordDecl::lookup_const_result Res = RD->lookup(FieldName);
>   if (Res.size() != 1)
>     return CXTypeLayoutError_InvalidFieldName;
>   if (const FieldDecl *FD = dyn_cast<FieldDecl>(Res.front()))
>     return getOffsetOfFieldDecl(FD);
>   if (const IndirectFieldDecl *IFD = dyn_cast<IndirectFieldDecl>(Res.front()))
>     return Ctx.getFieldOffset(IFD); // Change getOffsetOfFieldDecl() to accept IFD.
> 
>   return CXTypeLayoutError_InvalidFieldName;
> 
> 
> Thanks! That was exactly was I was looking for.
> 
> 
> In the process of implementing that new code, I stumble on some new crash tests cases.
> The RecordLayoutBuilder forces me to do a full validation of all records fields in a record.
> I have implemented a recursive validation function to do that.
> At the end, it does simplify the testing quite a lot.
> I do have to forget about the two previously confusing error types, as they would not be distinguishable.
> 
> So, basically, this code is now simpler and more robust.
> I added some tests cases in the Incomplete namespace to demonstrate the several issues I uncovered.
> 
>  
> 
>> 
>> I also removed the duplicate clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf().
>> After consideration, it did not make sense, especially in the
>> anonymous record situation.
> 
> Not sure about this, clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf is arguable more useful than clang_Type_getOffsetOf.
> Let's say you have this use-case: "visit all fields in a record and get their offsets". To do this (as your changes in c-index-test show) you need to use this roundabout way where, you have the field, then you get its name, and pass it to clang_Type_getOffsetOf which looks for the same field.
> Can't clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf just work, for example if you have a cursor for "foo" in
> 
> struct S {
>    struct {
>       int foo;
>    };
> };
> 
> it should just return the offset of "foo" inside "struct S".
> 
> That was also my feeling at the beginning.
> But after several iteration on my own code, I see that my own use of this function is always in a context were I do have the record's type and the field's name at hand.
> On top of that, the C++ standard calls for a Type signature.
> So I will keep it to that. 
> 
> 
> Please see attached diffs.

test/Index/print-type-size.cpp failed when I applied the diffs on top of r178800, could you take a look ?

> 
> * Implementation of sizeof, alignof and offsetof for libclang.
> * Unit Tests
> * Python bindings
> * Python tests
> 
> -- 
> Loïc Jaquemet
> <sizeof-alignof-offsetof-001><sizeof-alignof-offsetof-002-tests><sizeof-alignof-offsetof-003-python-bindings><sizeof-alignof-offsetof-004-python-bindings-tests>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130404/c36bb47c/attachment.html>