[cfe-dev] clang::Stmt, what's a child?
eric at boostpro.com
Wed Feb 23 23:38:09 PST 2011
On 2/24/2011 2:26 PM, John McCall wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> With my change, the AST for *both* will be stored under a new node type.
>> So, what should child_begin and child_end iterate over for this node
>> type? (My hunch is that only the rewritten node is really a child.)
> Yes, I think only the nodes that will actually be executed should be
> "children" in that sense; thus the rewritten tree and any tree whose
> values will be bound to OpaqueValueExprs, but not the OVEs
Ah, interesting. Thanks, John. Let's take the example AST you posted in
a previous thread:
# The original operand, for source fidelity
(MemberExpr int lvalue property
(DeclRefExpr "obj" Obj lvalue))
# The opaque value expression
(OpaqueValueExpr 0xabcdef Obj lvalue)
# The expression whose result the OpaqueValueExpr will be bound to
(DeclRefExpr "obj" Obj lvalue)
# The expression to evaluate, expressed in terms of the OVE
(MemberExpr void(int) .setBase
(OpaqueValueExpr 0xabcdef Obj lvalue))
(MemberExpr PropTy() .getBase
(OpaqueValueExpr 0xabcdef Obj lvalue)))))
I was thinking that only the last subexpr of PAO (the "expression to
evaluate") should be a logical "child" of PAO. But you seem to be saying
that the third subexpr above (the "expression whose result the
OpaqueValueExpr will be bound to") should also be a logical child.
This seems reasonable, but I just want to make sure that's really what
you are suggesting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the cfe-dev