[cfe-commits] [cfe-dev] [PATCH] Adding a specific_attribute_reverse_iterator

[Jordan Rose]

I hate to say it, but trying to solve the attributes-on-types problem this way seems like a bad idea.

int [[attr1]] * [[attr2, attr3]] var;
int [[attr1, attr2]] * [[attr3]] var;

We should be able to distinguish those, but we don't. And this won't help us do that, and pretending that it does is not a good thing, IMHO.

Jordan

P.S. At the micro level, what's wrong with using NULL as the reverse_iterator sentinel?


On Nov 14, 2012, at 14:00 , Alexandros Tzannes <atzannes at illinois.edu> wrote:

>  Hi all,
> the current Clang implementation has a specific_attr_iterator<AttrType> that allows iterating over the  attributes of a certain type (all attributes are kept in a single llvm::SmallVector), but it lacks a reverse iterator. This patch adds this functionality.
> 
> Why is this useful/needed (in the short run).
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> The C++11 standard allows attributes to appertain to types and portions of the declarator, e.g.:
> int[[attr1] *[[attr2] *[[attr3] var;
> 
> However, Clang is still collapsing those attributes on the declaration itself:
> int **var [[attr1,attr2,attr3]].
> 
> According to C++11 when multiple attributes of the same kind appertain to the same "node", their order is irrelevant (note that these attributes may have different attribute parameters):
> 
> int var [[attrA("x"), attrA("y")]] 
> and
> int var [[attrA("y"), attrA("x")]] 
> 
> must mean the same thing.
> 
> However, until attributes are allowed to appertain to all the new locations described by C++11, it would be useful to use their order to "map" them onto the  different nodes they should appertain. The specific_attr_reverse_iterator provides some functionality towards that goal.
> 
> Implementation
> ----------------------
> The implementation is a slightly modified version of the code of the corresponding forward iterator. A small difference is that the forward iterator returns a pointer to the underlying type *T, whereas the reverse one returns an object of type typedef std::reverse_iterator<iterator>. For that reason, Decl::attr_rbegin() and Decl::attr_rend() for attr_reverse_iterator check if the Decl has attributes, and if so, return the begin or the end; otherwise, they return a sentinel RNull, which is implemented as a static member of Decl. 
> 
> Using the RNull sentinel is a bit awkward. Two alternatives are the following:
> 1. Make the user responsible of checking if a Decl has an attributes vector before trying to get a specific_attr_reverse_iterator. Trying to get such an iterator on a Decl without any attrs will generate an assertion failure. This approach gets rid of RNull, but requires users to treat fwd and reverse iterators differently.
> 
> 2. Each time the user tries to get a reverse iterator on a Decl without attributes, create an empty attribute vector and return the beginning (or the end) of it. This approach also removes the awkward RNull, but may create many unneeded empty attribute vectors.
> 
> Please let me know if one of these alternatives is preferable.
> 
> Cheers!
> Alex Tzannes
> 
> [[written during the Hacker Lab at last week's LLVM devellopers' meeting]]
> 
> <specific_attr_reverse_iterator.diff>_______________________________________________
> 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-commits/attachments/20121114/4687406a/attachment.html>