[cfe-dev] AST transformations

[Olaf Krzikalla]

Am 11.03.2011 16:00, schrieb Sebastian Redl:
> Without doubt, AST is a bit of a misnomer for the HLIR component of
> Clang.
HLIR? I guess "high level intermediate represantation"? The internet (in 
terms of google and wikipedia :-) is rather quiet.

> 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.
I don't argue agains the AST in its current form (beside the naming). 
And I don't even argue against its immutability, since I fully 
understand the reasons behind that decision.
But would a lightweight component (cheap construction from original AST 
is required) be accepted in the clang universum, which emphasizes on 
syntax and which e.g. in the rewriter or maybe in the XML printer would 
replace the AST? It depends on the number of people using clang for 
source-to-source transformations and similar tasks. Judging from the 
questions on this list there are a few.


Best Olaf