[cfe-commits] [PATCH] x3 More matcher patches
Sam Panzer
panzer at google.com
Thu Jul 26 11:01:42 PDT 2012
Here's the next version :)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
> +AST_POLYMORPHIC_MATCHER_P2(
> + containsDeclaration, unsigned, N, internal::Matcher<Decl>,
> InnerMatcher) {
> + TOOLING_COMPILE_ASSERT((llvm::is_base_of<DeclStmt, NodeType>::value),
> + has_decl_requires_decl_stmt);
>
> This doesn't really make sense to me: why have a polymorphic return
> type and then check that it's in a single type path?
> Saying AST_MATCHER_P2(DeclStmt, ...) should have the same effect, as
> Matcher<DeclStmt> is-a Matcher<Type-derived-from-decl-stmt>.
>
>
Fixed. For good measure, I also deleted the extra spaces that Daniel
pointed out.
-Sam
> Apart from that LGTM
>
> Cheers,
> /Manuel
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Suggestions applied, and the new patch is attached.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +/// \brief Matches the Decl of a DeclStmt which has a single
> declaration.
> >> +/// Given
> >>
> >> I think you need an empty line between the \brief and the rest of the
> >> comment in order for doxygen to understand it correctly. (Here and in
> the
> >> other comments).
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the heads up!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> +/// \brief Matches the n'th declaration of a declaration statement.
> >> +/// Note that this does not work for global declarations due to the AST
> >>
> >> nit: "." at the end and separate with an empty comment line.
> >
> >
> > This was actually due to me leaving off the end of the sentence. It's now
> > included.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I would prefer: "Note that this does not work for global declarations as
> >> they are not represented by declarations statements in the AST."
> >>
> >> +/// declarationStatement(containsDeclaration(
> >> +/// 0, variable(hasInitializer(anything()))))
> >> +/// matches only 'int d = 2, e;', and
> >> +/// declarationStatement(containsDeclaration(1, variable()))
> >>
> >> nit^2: The declarationStatements seem to be indented one more than in
> your
> >> other comments.
> >>
> >
> > Fixed.
> >
> >>
> >> + EXPECT_TRUE(matches("void f() {int i,j; int k;}",
> >> + declarationStatement(declCountIs(2))));
> >>
> >> I think the "int k;" is unnecessary and makes the test (very slightly)
> >> worse. It would also pass if declCountIs(2) would for some very strange
> >> reason only match on a single declaration. For this test it is somewhat
> >> pointless, but in general, the examples should be as narrow as possible
> for
> >> the positive tests and as wide as possible for the negative tests
> (there, it
> >> might actually make sense to include "int a, b, c, d;" to clarify/ensure
> >> that declCountIs() does not match on declaration statements with at
> least N
> >> declarations). Again, no strong need to change this here, just as
> general
> >> advise.
> >
> >
> > I think I added this test to check that the matcher didn't only work on
> code
> > containing exactly one DeclStmt, though it doesn't really make sense, as
> you
> > point out.
> >
> > I also renamed the HasDecl test to ContainsDeclaration to reflect the
> > matcher's name change.
> >
> >>
> >> Other than these nits, the patch looks good! Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Does anything else need fixing?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cfe-commits mailing list
> >>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120726/662904b4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: decl-matcher-update.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4858 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120726/662904b4/attachment.obj>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list