[cfe-dev] AST transformations

[Sebastian Redl]

On 11.03.2011 14:43, Olaf Krzikalla wrote:
> Am 11.03.2011 11:46, schrieb Sebastian Redl:
>> On 11.03.2011 11:02, Olaf Krzikalla wrote:
>>> Why should I have to deal with Sema at all? AST transformation and
>>> rewriting don't care about Sema.
>> In C++, there's very little that doesn't care about Sema. Any rewrite
>> could require new implicit conversion sequences to be calculated, and
>> unless you want to reimplement that code, you need to go through Sema.
> Maybe you already can sense the response: do implicit conversion
> sequences belong to an AST at all?
Without doubt, AST is a bit of a misnomer for the HLIR component of 
Clang. On the other hand, representing pure syntax leaves so much work 
to be done, and we would need the annotated tree anyway. At least most 
of the in-tree components work on the annotated tree and actually 
require that information.

Sebastian