[cfe-dev] C++11 migration tools

[Manuel Klimek]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:

> In case anyone wanted to take a look, the attached patch includes the tool
> I've been working on. I create a new binary, c++migrate, which attempts to
> convert for loops in the source files given to it. Most of my focus has
> been on the FrontedAction, so I skirted all of the issues mentioned above
> by keeping the frontend interaction minimal (i.e. I just call
> Tooling::ClangTool::run), and the changes are just reported on standard
> output, if there are any to be made.
>
> The tool can currently convert for loops that range over (1) statically
> allocated arrays, and (2) Clang-style iterator-based loops (with begin and
> end iterators defined). All loop variables need to be declared within the
> loop's initialization step in order for it to be converted, though this
> requirement can potentially be eliminated. I'm working on converting
> iterator-based loops that call someContainer.end() on each iteration, since
> they're probably the common case in many codebases.
>
> Just for fun, I ran the tool over the 41 .cpp files in lib/Sema, and my
> tool found 71 convertible loops in 17 files. There is plenty more work to
> go, because it clearly missed some easy ones.
>
> Any input or feedback is welcome!
>

High-level observations:
1. the handling of the rewrites; any reason not to use the
Tooling/Refactoring stuff? Currently in the patch it looks to me like the
files are not rewritten, but dumped to stdout
2. is the reason not to use the matchers here that they're not landed in
mainline yet?

Cheers,
/Manuel


>
> -Sam
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm that intern :)
>>
>> -Sam
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM, John Wiegley <johnw at boostpro.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>>>> Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > In particular, I am working on a tool to convert existing C++ for
>>> loops to
>>> > take advantage of the new C++11 range-based syntax. I can imagine
>>> similar
>>> > tools to replace const with constexpr, macro hacks with static_assert,
>>> and
>>> > potentially other common refactorings.
>>>
>>> > Thoughts? Suggestions?
>>>
>>> You really must watch this presentation, if you haven't already:
>>>
>>>     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuIOGfcOH0k
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Wiegley
>>> BoostPro Computing
>>> http://www.boostpro.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120629/653efee6/attachment.html>