[cfe-commits] [PATCH] x3 More matcher patches

[Manuel Klimek]

lgtm

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
> Latest version attached!
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>> > I also noticed that a hasDeclaration matcher which serves a different
>> > purpose. I think the new hasDecl matcher needs a new name...
>>
>> Good point. Any ideas for how to differentiate "hasDeclaration" in
>> terms of "something that declares what's used here" vs.
>> "hasDeclaration" in terms of "aggregates a declaration that matches"?
>>
>
> How about "containsDeclaration" for the latter case? Since it's intended for
> use in a DeclStmt, it makes sense to talk about the declarations contained
> within the statement - and I think it would be difficult to find a better
> name for the original "hasDeclaration."
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Here's a new version of the DeclStmt patch. Changes include:
>> >>  - Fixed comments by declCountIs and hasSingleDecl
>> >>  - Added hasDecl in the spirit of hasArgument
>> >>  - Changed the loop to std::distance (std::advance in hasDecl)
>> >>  - Added a few more test cases.
>> >>
>> >> And to explain the for loop in the test case for hasSingleDecl, I
>> >> discovered that Clang explodes some DeclStmts with multiple
>> >> declarations
>> >> such as these:
>> >>   int a, b;  // toplevel declarations
>> >> According to the AST dump, Clang treats this line as two separate
>> >> DeclStmts, rather than one DeclStmt with two Decls. This also happens
>> >> to
>> >> declarations inside namespaces, and I'm not really sure where else.
>> >> Maybe
>> >> someone else has a better idea how to describe when the AST doesn't
>> >> reflect
>> >> the source the same way?
>> >>
>> >> The other patch will be sent on a fork of the previous discussion.
>> >> Any new comments?
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> +  // We could use Node.decl_begin() - Node.decl_end(), but that
>> >>> >> relies on
>> >>> >> +  // decl_iterator just being a Decl**.
>> >>> >> +  unsigned DeclCount = 0;
>> >>> >> +  for (DeclStmt::const_decl_iterator I = Node.decl_begin(),
>> >>> >> +       E = Node.decl_end(); I != E; ++I)
>> >>> >> +    ++DeclCount;
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> (after chatting with Chandler about this on irc):
>> >>> >> I'd use Node.decl_end() - Node.decl_begin(). If it ever becomes a
>> >>> >> non-const-time operation, the iterator will not implement the
>> >>> >> interface and break compilation, so we'll notice.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But do we need to notice? If the original algorithm written here is
>> >>> > linear it seems like constant time size is not a requirement.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > If that's the case, then std::distance just DTRT - constant time for
>> >>>
>> >>> I personally am fine with arguing for std::distance. My point is not
>> >>> to write the loop :)
>> >>>
>> >>> > random access iterators, linear for others. (alternatively, provide
>> >>> > Node::decl_size that does the same thing - but I can understand the
>> >>> > concern of providing a (possibly in the future) non-constant-time
>> >>> > size, though at that point you could remove size & go back & examine
>> >>> > each client to see which ones care about that)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Regardless of that, I think your comment is wrong in 2 ways: first,
>> >>> >> there's a typo :) Second, that the iterator happens to come down do
>> >>> >> being a pointer has nothing to do with its contract. It either
>> >>> >> provides random access or not.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> +/// \brief Matches expressions that match InnerMatcher after
>> >>> >> implicit
>> >>> >> casts are
>> >>> >> +/// stripped off.
>> >>> >> +AST_MATCHER_P(Expr, ignoreImplicitCasts,
>> >>> >> +              internal::Matcher<Expr>, InnerMatcher) {
>> >>> >> +  return InnerMatcher.matches(*Node.IgnoreImpCasts(), Finder,
>> >>> >> Builder);
>> >>> >> +}
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I think we should implement the equivalent based on
>> >>> >> ignoreParenImpCast
>> >>> >> first, as that's what I've seen us needing much more often (we can
>> >>> >> implement this one, too, of course ;)
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Cheers,
>> >>> >> /Manuel
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>> <div>Attached are three more small matcher patches. One fixes
>> >>> >>> another
>> >>> >>> rename typo (AnyOf --> anyOf) that was similar to the previous
>> >>> >>> allOf patch. The second patch adds more inspection for
>> >>> >>> declarationStatement matchers, making it easier to look at single
>> >>> >>> declarations directly. The third patch adds expression matchers
>> >>> >>> which
>> >>> >>> call IgnoreXXXCasts() before  applying their
>> >>> >>> sub-matchers.</div><div><br></div>For future reference, should I
>> >>> >>> continue splitting up these patches for
>> >>> >>> review?<div><br></div><div>-Sam</div>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> >>> >>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>> >> cfe-commits mailing list
>> >>> >> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>