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

Argiris Kirtzidis akyrtzi at gmail.com
Sun Oct 26 12:57:45 PDT 2008

Ted Kremenek wrote:
> I agree with Steve and Chris here.  While there is value in looking  
> forward, the demands of real clients will clarify our (future) needs  
> from Sema, further modularity in Clang, new Action modules, and so  
> forth.  At this point much of this discussion, although extremely  
> interesting, seems dominated by discussion about hypothetical issues.

The specific issue is that you cannot get a parse tree out of Clang.
I don't think I convinced anyone about the importance of the parse tree 
for IDEs but please note that refactoring in Visual Studio and Eclipse 
works on semantically invalid code.
My concern is that Sema will just get bigger and the parse tree will 
never be provided (or it will be a bitrotting piece of code) since 
compiling/static analysis will be the focus.
The response for requests about a parse tree will be "build an action 
module" or "use clang only on correct code", in the end limiting the 
suitability of Clang for IDEs and/or limiting the parse AST.

Anyway, if the consensus is that the parse tree is not important, I'll 
shut up :-)


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list