[PATCH] D86169: Initial support for letting plugins perform custom parsing of attribute arguments.

[Jonathan Protzenko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jonathan.protzenko added a comment.

In D86169#2241830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86169#2241830>, @aaron.ballman wrote:

>> - Upon encountering `[[ attr(X) ]]` where `attr` is a plugin-handled attribute: clang parses `X` as token soup, only caring about finding a matching parenthesis
>
> Just to be clear, what you mean is to lex all of the tokens comprising `X` and store them off for later?

Correct.

>> Does this stand any chance of working?
>
> This is along the same lines of what I was thinking, but there is one potential snag. Clang layers our library components and Sema should never refer back to the Parser (it doesn't link the library in). Because you have an odd requirement where you need to do further parsing during the semantics stage, you may run into awkwardness from this. Also, you may have to worry about needing this functionality recursively. e.g., `int x [[your_attr(int y [[your_attr(int z;)]];)]];` which could be... interesting.

I guess I'd have to i) call the action to create, say, a Decl, then later ii) call the plugin and extend the Decl with fresh attributes, assuming the attribute vector on the Decl can be grown *after* the Decl is created -- hopefully this can be driven from the parser, without a back-edge in the dependency graph? Or maybe I'm missing something?

Do you have any example somewhere of how to store tokens and re-fill the lex buffer with them later on? This is much more involved than my current patch so may take me a while to figure out.

>> Bonus question: seeing `diagAppertainsToDecl`, the name of this function led me to believe that for now, plugins could only handle attributes attached to declarations. Is this the case?
>
> Correct, the plugin system does not yet handle type or statement attributes (it was focusing on declaration attributes first, which are the lion's share of attributes in Clang).

Ok, I was asking because if there's no plans to handle type or statement attributes via a plugin, then we're somewhat over-engineering this.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D86169/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D86169