[cfe-dev] Question of compile class
Nikola Smiljanic
popizdeh at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 14:20:50 PST 2014
Why exactly do you want an out of source build if your using makefiles?
It's beneficial with Visual Studio but I don't see the reason for it if
you're building from the command line?
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
> .... i have no idea of cmake ....
>
> i use makefile under linux, so who could help?
>
>
> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I only know how to do this with cmake.
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>
>> i think i get your point and that is what i expect.
>>
>> you mean that:
>>
>> 1. make a standalone directory for Clang not in llvm/tools
>>
>> 2. compile both llvm and clang as usual
>>
>> 3. if i modify Clang source file, i just execute the Makefile inside
>> clang/ directory, so it
>> will just re-compile the Clang file without checking llvm files
>>
>> is there any instructions to do this?
>>
>> Especially in step 2, if i compile in this way i guess i will break the
>> dependence relationship in "configure" file?
>>
>> Best
>> xiaohui
>>
>>
>> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The best you can do is compile clang "out of source". Meaning the clang
>> directory stands on its own and not in llvm/projects. This makes a
>> difference if you're generating Visual Studio solution file as you won't
>> have to load llvm projects. But llvm must be built.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think so. clang uses a lot of LLVM's core libraries.
>>>
>>> Jingyue
>>>
>>> On Thu Nov 06 2014 at 9:14:49 AM Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all:
>>>>
>>>> I am writing a source to source tool and adding new keywords in the
>>>> clang source file(i just care about the AST),
>>>> is there a way to just compile the clang frontend source file but not
>>>> including llvm source file?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely
>>>> xiaohui
>>>>
>>>> On 11/03/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am confusing here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Traverse method visits AST nodes that form a tree. CXXRecordDecl is
>>>>> the parent of each of its CXXMethodDecls and FieldDecls.
>>>>>
>>>>> CXXMethodDecls ( FieldDecls ) is not a member of CXXRecordDecl and
>>>>> also does not inherit from CXXRecordDecl, so how could
>>>>> you define them as parent-child relationship?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CXXRecordDecl contains CXXMethodDecls and RecordDecl contains
>>>> FieldDecls. They're just stored in the DeclContext class but are exposed
>>>> with method_begin/method_end and field_begin/field_end.
>>>>
>>>> 2. WalkUpFrom method visits the class hierarchy of a single AST node.
>>>>> CXXRecordDecl inherits RecordDecl which inherits TagDecl etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> here TagDecl has three direct parents, so will WalkUpFrom be applied
>>>>> to these three classes?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> TagDecl does have three super classes but only one of them is also an
>>>> AST node. AST is built from declarations, statements and types. DeclContext
>>>> represents a declaration context and structs/classes introduce one. They
>>>> are also redeclarable (forward declaration) which is what Redeclarable
>>>> class keeps track of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sincerely
>>>>> xiaohui
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/03/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two parent-child relationships at play.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Traverse method visits AST nodes that form a tree. CXXRecordDecl is
>>>>> the parent of each of its CXXMethodDecls and FieldDecls. This is what
>>>>> you'll see with clang -cc1 -ast-dump
>>>>> 2. WalkUpFrom method visits the class hierarchy of a single AST node.
>>>>> CXXRecordDecl inherits RecordDecl which inherits TagDecl etc. Think of
>>>>> serialization, to serialize CXXRecordDecl you'd first want to serialize
>>>>> everything from the base class and so on recursively.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using Clang as the frontend of my project, but i am confusing of
>>>>>> the following statements.
>>>>>> PS: i am a newbie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These tasks are done by three groups of methods, respectively:00089 /// 1. TraverseDecl(Decl *x) does task #1. It is the entry point00090 /// for traversing an AST rooted at x. This method simply00091 /// dispatches (i.e. forwards) to TraverseFoo(Foo *x) where Foo00092 /// is the dynamic type of *x, which calls WalkUpFromFoo(x) and00093 /// then recursively visits the child nodes of x.00094 /// TraverseStmt(Stmt *x) and TraverseType(QualType x) work00095 /// similarly.00096 /// 2. WalkUpFromFoo(Foo *x) does task #2. It does not try to visit00097 /// any child node of x. Instead, it first calls WalkUpFromBar(x)00098 /// where Bar is the direct parent class of Foo (unless Foo has00099 /// no parent), and then calls VisitFoo(x) (see the next list item).00100 /// 3. VisitFoo(Foo *x) does task #3.00101 ///00102 /// These three method groups are tiered (Traverse* > WalkUpFrom* >00103 /// Visit*). A method (e.g. Traverse*) may call methods from the same00104 /// tier (e.g. other Traverse*) or one tier lower (e.g. WalkUpFrom*).00105 /// It may not call methods from a higher tier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the above statement, the calling relationship between
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> functions are organized in this way in general:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Traversal*()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> .......
>>>>>> WalkUpFrom*();
>>>>>> .......
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WalkUpFrom*()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> .......
>>>>>> Visit*();
>>>>>> .......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> am i right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this statement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 00096 /// 2. WalkUpFromFoo(Foo *x) does task #2. It does not try to visit00097 /// any child node of x. Instead, it first calls WalkUpFromBar(x)00098 /// where Bar is the direct parent class of Foo (unless Foo has00099 /// no parent), and then calls VisitFoo(x) (see the next list item).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what do you mean by saying "the direct parent class of Foo"?
>>>>>> why i need to visit the parent class before i visit the current
>>>>>> class?
>>>>>> what is the purpose? Could you please give me a short example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you in advance!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely
>>>>>> xiaohui
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20141107/712d9df0/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list