[cfe-dev] using libclang, callback function does not traverse recursively and does not visit all functions

[Pankaj Gode]

I am following an example which shows limitation of python bindings, from site http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/07/03/parsing-c-in-python-with-clang/ It uses "libclang visitation API directly".

import sys
import clang.cindex

def callexpr_visitor(node, parent, userdata):
    if node.kind == clang.cindex.CursorKind.CALL_EXPR:
          print 'Found %s [line=%s, col=%s]' % (
              node.spelling, node.location.line, node.location.column)
    return 2 # means continue visiting recursively

index = clang.cindex.Index.create()
tu = index.parse(sys.argv[1])
clang.cindex.Cursor_visit(
             tu.cursor,
            clang.cindex.Cursor_visit_callback(callexpr_visitor),
            None)
The output shows all functions called along with their line numbers.

Found foo [line=8, col=5]
Found foo [line=10, col=9]
Found bar [line=15, col=5]
Found foo [line=16, col=9]
Found bar [line=17, col=9]

When I run the same code, I only get output
Found bar [line=15, col=5]

The version I use is llvm3.1 with windows (with the changes suggested in the link).

I feel, returning 2 is not calling the callback function again. I have even tried using 'get_children' on node and traversing without callback, I get the same result.


import sys
import clang.cindex

#def callexpr_visitor(node, parent, userdata):
def callexpr_visitor(node):
    if node.kind == clang.cindex.CursorKind.CALL_EXPR:
            print 'Found %s [line=%s, col=%s]' % (
             clang.cindex.Cursor_displayname(node), node.location.line, node.location.column)
    for c in node.get_children():
           callexpr_visitor(c)
    #return 2 # means continue visiting recursively

index = clang.cindex.Index.create()
tu = index.parse(sys.argv[1])
#clang.cindex.Cursor_visit(
#        tu.cursor,
#        clang.cindex.Cursor_visit_callback(callexpr_visitor),
#        None)
callexpr_visitor(tu.cursor)


I was expecting that a recursive traversal will happen and I will be getting the same list as given in example.

I could not get the reason for this behaviour after much search and trials. 
Am I making a mistake in using or the behaviour has changed over time and I should be using something else ?

Best Regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131128/59444c64/attachment.html>