[cfe-commits] Preliminary patch to support MSVC __declspec(property)

[endlessroad1991 at gmail.com]

Well, thank you :-)

I'm not planning to work on subscriptable properties, because our project
doesn't involve that, and I still think subscriptable property is full of
undocumented behavior and is rarely used.

However, I have another patch to provide support for "for each", also
well-tested by our codebase. However, I think this feature is not useful,
but if someone needs it I can post it here.

I want to continue work on clang C++ support on WIndows. I understand that
the main problem is MSVC ABI. Do you have someone to refer to?

Thanks.


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:

> On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:53 PM, endlessroad1991 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Last problem:
>
>> 2. In Sema/SemaExpr.cpp, ActOnCallExpr():
>> I admit that I'm not very thorough about this one...
>> But here the CheckPlaceholderExpr() call does solve the follwing problem.
>> === Code Start ===
>> // If compiled with -ggdb, clang will crash and saying something about
>> // "unexpected builtin-type" in some CG code.
>>
>> struct S2 {
>> template <class T>
>> void f(T t) {}
>> };
>>
>> template <class T>
>> struct S
>> {
>> __declspec(property(get=GetV)) int V;
>> int GetV() { return 123; }
>> void f() { S2 s2; s2.f(V); }
>> };
>>
>> int main() {
>> S<int> s;
>> s.f();
>> }
>> === Code End ===
>>
>>
>> Ah, I think the problem here is that overload resolution and especially
>> template argument deduction aren't lowering out placeholder types.  Please
>> hoist this loop out of the C++ block (for obscure reasons; just trust me)
>> and check:
>>   hasPlaceholderType(BuiltinType::PseudoObject)
>> instead of checking for a particular expression kind.
>>
>> And please add this as a test case. :)
>>
>
> This change leads to a test failure:
> test/SemaObjc/property-user-setter.m, Line 88:
> void g(int); // expected-note {{passing argument to parameter here}}
> this note is no longer printed.
> If it's fine, wen can just remove the expected-note comment, but I don't
> know if it's appropriate.
>
>
> The note's not particularly important, no.  The context of initializing
> a parameter doesn't really have much to do with the failure to load
> the property.
>
> This looked really good, so I spent a little time tweaking it and
> then committed it as r179585, thanks!
>
> The main changes I made were:
>   - I tweaked a lot of the diagnostic text to just talk about properties
> instead of saying __declspec(property).
>   - I also changed the diagnostic names to make it clear that they were
> specific to MS properties.
>   - I reworked the parsing code to avoid some redundant diagnostics and
> recover nicely in some ways.  For example, if you try to say set=setX,
> it'll tell you to write put=setX.
>   - Properties have to be bare identifiers, so there is no point in
> storing a full DeclarationNameInfo;  it's always just a SourceLocation.
>
> Please don't let the number of changes dishearten you;  it was all just
> small tweaks, and this was really great work!
>
> Are you planning to work on subscriptable properties, or was this enough
> to get your project ported?
>
> John.
>



-- 
Best Regards, Tong Shen (沈彤)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130416/02aeaa70/attachment.html>