[cfe-dev] C++11 migration tools

Manuel Klimek klimek at google.com
Thu Jul 12 00:01:48 PDT 2012

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
> In the interests of breaking up the commits for the migration tool, I have
> prepared a skeleton for the executable, tests, and one of the
> transformations. This should give us a concrete example to work with, along
> with a place for me to commit changes as they begin to work reliably.
> Thoughts?

When the question of where this should live has been resolved by Chris
I'll do a more in-depth review - but be forewarned that I'll fight
strongly for a no-globals policy and unit tests ;)


> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> > Similarly for the migration tools. Most users want to migrate to C++11,
>> > or migrate to modern Objective-C. The languages are different enough that it
>> > doesn't seem we'd benefit much from having one tool capable of migrating to
>> > modern Objective-ARC++11 in one shot… although you're wearing me down on
>> > that particular issue. A code "modernizer" that covers the various languages
>> > doesn't fall afoul of my justification below...
>> I'm assuming that this will eventually grow to include more than just a
>> few modernizers...
>> >> What is the downside of having all the rewriters be in the same tool?
>> >
>> > That tool has no obvious purpose or scope; it's just a grab bag of
>> > rewriters that happened to land in the tree. That's very hard to communicate
>> > to potential users. It also doesn't fit well with the tooling model, which
>> > intends to make it easier to build one-off, specialized tools, which are
>> > likely to be easier to use than a single executable with a pile of
>> > command-line options.
>> >
>> > I do also worry about quality: it's far easier to qualify and test a
>> > specialized tool than it is to test all of the emergent combinations from an
>> > overly-general tool, especially if the robustness of various pieces varies
>> > wildly (which I expect it will). IIRC, the ARC migrator and ObjC modernizer
>> > needed some massaging to make all of the rewrites play nicely together, and
>> > that's a fairly small set of rules written by a very small number of people.
>> Ok, I'm not going to fight strongly for this. :)  If you guys think that
>> it makes sense to keep them all separate, that's cool with me.  If it turns
>> out to be a bad idea in the future, they can always be merged at that point.
>> -Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list