[cfe-dev] Should we build semantically invalid nodes?
akyrtzi at gmail.com
Sun Oct 26 11:25:48 PDT 2008
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Argiris Kirtzidis wrote:
>> Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> It seems to me that it comes down to the clients that are the
>>> ultimate consumers of this information. Since Sema is perfectly
>>> fine for correct code, lets ignore all clients that require
>>> well-formed code (e.g. codegen, refactoring, etc)
>> Refactoring, as I see it, doesn't require well-formed code, e.g.
>> "rename this parameter name" doesn't particularly care about only the
>> well-formed uses, it just wants to find all the appearances of the
>> parameter in the function, even if the parameter is used in an
>> invalid reinterpret_cast.
> Refactoring invalid code is extremely dangerous. If there are errors
> in the code, then how can the refactory possibly preserve the
> semantics? The semantics aren't even well-defined. I'm pretty sure the
> Eclipse Java refactory requires valid code.
Well, refactoring in Visual Studio works fine on code with invalid
More information about the cfe-dev