[cfe-commits] r42311 - in /cfe/trunk: AST/Decl.cpp Parse/MinimalAction.cpp Parse/ParseObjc.cpp Sema/Sema.h Sema/SemaDecl.cpp clang.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj include/clang/AST/ASTContext.h include/clang/AST/Decl.h include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticKinds.def include/clang/Parse/Action.h test/Sema/class-def-test-1.m test/Sema/class-impl-1.m

Devang Patel dpatel at apple.com
Thu Oct 4 14:52:11 PDT 2007

On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:

>> an implementation decl object is made.
>> Would it be feasible to handle this like we do for struct forward
>> definitions, where the definition of a struct goes back and fills in
>> the declaration with the implementation info?  It seems strange to
>> me that objc code like this:
>> @interface OBJECT @end
>> @interface INTF  : OBJECT
>> @end
>> @implementation INTF @end
>> Creates an 'ObjcInterfaceDecl' for INTF, then a separate
>> 'ObjcImplementationDecl' later, which isn't added to the scope
>> info.  If it were, you could drop this linear time lookup code:
> ObjcInterfaceDecl and ObjcImplementationDecl are not same as 'struct
> S'. ObjcInterfaceDecl is part of the type system.
> ObjcImplementationDecl is a node which encapsulates information about
> methods which have implementations (definitions) in current TU.

I'm curious - How is "@class INTF; " represented in AST nodes ?
Does it make sense to drop "Decl" from ObjcInterfaceDecl and  
ObjcImplementation ?


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list