<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Manuel Klimek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com" target="_blank">klimek@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Sam Panzer <<a href="mailto:panzer@google.com">panzer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Here you go.<br>
<br>
Sorry for not getting to this earlier - apparently nobody has<br>
submitted this yet :)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No problem :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm happy to submit it, but patch complains about the patch - is there<br>
a reason there are no newlines after the @@ ... @@ parts?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's odd...I must have deleted a spare newline in that section. Here's another diff that I successfully patched onto master.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers,<br>
/Manuel<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com">klimek@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> A couple more things:<br>
>> - please completely take out the type() matcher - I've looked into it,<br>
>> and we need to come up with a good design here first; until then I<br>
>> don't think it makes sense to have a hack in<br>
>> - please rename castExpression -> castExpr to be consistent with the node<br>
>> name<br>
>><br>
>> Apart from that lgtm<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> /Manuel<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Sam Panzer <<a href="mailto:panzer@google.com">panzer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A new version, with shorter (Implicit --> Imp) matcher names!<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com">klimek@google.com</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Sam Panzer <<a href="mailto:panzer@google.com">panzer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Here's the next version!<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com">klimek@google.com</a>><br>
>> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> +/// \brief Matches expressions that match InnerMatcher after<br>
>> >> >> parentheses<br>
>> >> >> and<br>
>> >> >> +/// casts are stripped off.<br>
>> >> >> +///<br>
>> >> >> +/// Implicit and non-C Style casts are not discarded.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> This contradicts the example...<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > s/not/also/<br>
>> >> > Though I'm not sure if this makes it any clearer than not having a<br>
>> >> > comment.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> +/// \brief Matches any cast nodes of Clang's AST.<br>
>> >> >> +///<br>
>> >> >> +/// Example: castExpression() matches each of the following:<br>
>> >> >> +/// (int) 3;<br>
>> >> >> +/// const_cast<Expr *>(SubExpr);<br>
>> >> >> +/// (i);<br>
>> >> >> +/// char c = 0;<br>
>> >> >> +const internal::VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<<br>
>> >> >> + Expr,<br>
>> >> >> + CastExpr> castExpression;<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Actually, this comment wasn't correct either, since parentheses<br>
>> >> > aren't<br>
>> >> > CastExpr's. Fixed!<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> I'd vote for calling all new matchers we write exactly like the AST<br>
>> >> >> nodes (castExpr in this case).<br>
>> >> >> I lost the fight, and if we ever want to get to the place where it<br>
>> >> >> all<br>
>> >> >> just works, we have to start not introducing new violations of that<br>
>> >> >> rule.<br>
>> >> >> Same for Implicit -> Imp (it hurts me, but, oh well, I'll live ;)<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I would agree on the AST-style naming convention. I can see three<br>
>> >> > naming<br>
>> >> > styles for CastExpr among existing matchers: cast (already taken!),<br>
>> >> > castExpression (what I used), and castExpr. Which cast matchers are<br>
>> >> > you<br>
>> >> > suggesting should be renamed, and to what? I'll be happy to change<br>
>> >> > them,<br>
>> >> > but<br>
>> >> > I'm not sure what you're asking.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ignoringImplicitCasts -> ignoringImpCasts<br>
>> >> ignoringParenImplicitCasts -> ingoringParenImpCasts<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Done.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> >> + EXPECT_TRUE(matches("char *p = reinterpret_cast<char *>(&p);",<br>
>> >> >> + expression(castExpression())));<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Btw, if we defined the castExpr as VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<Stmt,<br>
>> >> >> CastExpr> just putting them in top-level would work, too. Since a<br>
>> >> >> Matcher<Stmt> is-a Matcher<Expr> this would also not limit the use<br>
>> >> >> of<br>
>> >> >> castExpr.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I was following the other cast examples such as implicitCast. Would<br>
>> >> > it<br>
>> >> > be<br>
>> >> > better to change this?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Yes, and I think we should change the others, but not in this CL; just<br>
>> >> use<br>
>> >> const internal::VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<Stmt, CastExpr><br>
>> >> castExpression;<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> + pointsTo(TypeMatcher(anything())))))));<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> This is unfortunate. We should add a type() matcher.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I've used this workaround in my client code - and I just discovered<br>
>> >> > that<br>
>> >> > the<br>
>> >> > test Matcher.HandlesNullQualTypes does too (with a fixme echoing your<br>
>> >> > complaint):<br>
>> >> > const TypeMatcher AnyType = anything();<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I briefly tried adding a type() matcher, but it seems like matchers<br>
>> >> > treat<br>
>> >> > types differently from statements and declarations. All existing<br>
>> >> > matchers on<br>
>> >> > types just take a single argument, which is usually hasDeclaration()<br>
>> >> > in<br>
>> >> > some<br>
>> >> > form (often indirectly), so it's not as easy as adding another<br>
>> >> > AST_MATCHER<br>
>> >> > definition. I'll leave this up to someone who really knows how the<br>
>> >> > new<br>
>> >> > matcher should fit in :)<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> A type matcher would be added like this:<br>
>> >> const internal::VariadicDynCastAllOfMatcher<QualType, QualtType> type;<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > I tried that already. It fails because QualType does not define the<br>
>> > member<br>
>> > functions needed for dyn_cast to work, i.e. classOf(). I'm not brave<br>
>> > enough<br>
>> > to try modifying QualType directly just for a type matcher, nor am I<br>
>> > sure<br>
>> > that it's the right fix.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> >> +TEST(CastExpression, MatchesSimpleCases) {<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> I'm not really happy with those names, but I'm aware it's really<br>
>> >> >> hard<br>
>> >> >> to come up with good test names in those cases.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I broke the test into MatchesImplicitCasts and MatchesExplicitCasts,<br>
>> >> > both of<br>
>> >> > which are much better names.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>