[cfe-dev] Should we build semantically invalid nodes?

Argiris Kirtzidis akyrtzi at gmail.com
Sat Oct 25 14:17:28 PDT 2008

steve naroff wrote:
> Are you certain the current AST's are appropriate for what you 
> envision doing?

I don't think it's likely for clients that care about syntax to find the 
current AST unappropriate, just look at this:

(1) + (2-1)  --->

(BinaryOperator 0212D728 <col:11, col:21> 'int' '+'
        (ParenExpr 0212D5A0 <col:11, col:13> 'int'
          (IntegerLiteral 0212D548 <col:12> 'int' 1))
        (ParenExpr 0212D6E0 <col:17, col:21> 'int'
          (BinaryOperator 0212D698 <col:18, col:20> 'int' '-'
            (IntegerLiteral 0212D5E8 <col:18> 'int' 2)
            (IntegerLiteral 0212D640 <col:20> 'int' 1))))

'+' operator ?
"2-1" not folded ?
expressions for parentheses ?

Syntax-loving clients would be thrilled :-)


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list