[cfe-dev] For loop conversion (was: C++11 migration tools)

[Manuel Klimek]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:

> Here are three kinds of operations that I would want to completely avoid
> any kind of recursive AST traversal:
>  - Optional matchers: In order to ignore certain ignorable parts of the
> AST, I often want to create
>

Is there something missing?


>  - Right-recursive matchers:
>
>   I have a function that hunts for the expression which is actually passed
> to a single-parameter constructor, which sheds ImplicitCastExprs,
> single-parameter CXXConstructExprs, and MaterializeTemporaryExprs until it
> finds something that is not a single-parameter constructor. Essentially,
> the matcher would look like
>   StmtMatcher =
> expression(rightRecursion(ignoreImplicitCasts(constructorCall(argumentCountIs(1),
> hasArgument(0, optional(materializeTemporaryExpr(RecursionPoint))),
> withBaseCase(id(expresion))))
>

hasDescendant / forEachDescendant doesn't work?


>  - The ability to run the equivalent of a MatchFinder on an arbitrary AST
> (e.g. in the callback of another matcher)
>

That shouldn't be too hard to implement.


>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> wrote:
>> >> > Good point. I currently have a matcher that finds for loops that
>> appear
>> >> > to
>> >> > have the right shape for conversion, and I do some extra checking
>> along
>> >> > with
>> >> > the conversion work in the callback. I can completely handle
>> array-style
>> >> > loops with a Preprocessor, which is used when generating the names of
>> >> > new
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand yet what the Preprocessor is needed for here...
>> >
>> >
>> > I use Preprocessor in exactly one place right now, namely to create an
>> > IdentifierResolver. When I am generating the name of a new loop
>> variable, I
>> > want to make sure that the identifier is unique, which is an
>> approximation
>> > to checking that the identifier neither shadows an existing definition
>> nor
>> > is shadowed in an inner scope. If there's a better way to do this, I
>> would
>> > be happy to change it.
>>
>> The ASTContext has the identifier table. (ASTContext::Idents).
>>
>> >> > variables. For iterator-style loops, I use Sema to determine the
>> return
>> >> > type
>> >> > of operator*, which will be the type of the loop variable. Finally
>> >> > (though
>> >>
>> >> Isn't the return type of the oeprator* already in the AST?
>> >
>> >
>> > It's actually possible that operator* is never called. My initial
>> > implementation tried to infer the type from  expressions involving the
>> > iterator, but this didn't work correctly for CXXMemberCallExpr. I can
>> > conceivably work around this without checking operator*, but
>>
>> did you want to finish that
>>
>> >> > this isn't implemented yet), containers that are used as if they're
>> >> > arrays
>> >> > will require Sema to check if suitable begin() and end() functions
>> >> > exist.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, I see - basically you want to trigger overload resolution to see
>> >> whether the conversion would work. That makes sense. I'm not sure we
>> >> want to get all of Sema available though - it's an insanely huge
>> >> interface, and it's rather hard to figure out what's safe to do and
>> >> what's not.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps we can create a class that encapsulates Sema for those
>> >> "what-if" type questions we'll need to answer for refactoring tools?
>> >
>> >
>> > This sounds like a good idea. I can try to identify exactly the
>> features I
>> > need (most likely just overload resolution).
>>
>> That would sound like most of what we need. It has come up a few
>> times. Let me know if you identify more things we need.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> /Manuel
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > For now, I can force the use of auto rather than an explicit type
>> >> > listing
>> >> > for iterator-based loops and get most of the work done without Sema.
>> The
>> >> > question then becomes the correct way to avoid repeatedly creating a
>> >> > Preprocessor object, though if this is a cheap operation, I can
>> create
>> >> > one
>> >> > in the callback.
>> >> >
>> >> > Does this make the use clearer?
>> >>
>> >> Yep, thx.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> /Manuel
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm trying to port my code to take advantage of matchers, now that
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > in mainline. Some of the work I want to do involves semantic
>> analysis
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > results (i.e. in the callback). What would be the best way to get
>> a
>> >> >> > Sema
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > CompilerInstance out of either RefactoringTool or MatchResult? I'm
>> >> >> > currently
>> >> >> > playing with changing MatchASTConsumer to inherit from
>> SemaConsumer,
>> >> >> > so
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > MatchFinder can track a Sema object the same way it does an
>> >> >> > ASTContext.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd be interested in what the use cases for the semantic analysis
>> are
>> >> >> first. Often it seems like it would be better to have the
>> information
>> >> >> available in the AST instead of rerunning (potentially expensive)
>> >> >> semantic analysis.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> /Manuel
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Manuel Klimek <
>> klimek at google.com>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com
>> >
>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Thanks for the input!
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Tooling/Refactoring is definitely the right way to go -
>> dumping
>> >> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >> >>>>> stdout was just a holdover from the example on LibTooling.
>> I'll
>> >> >> >>>>> change it
>> >> >> >>>>> once I figure out how it works - and a clean way to arrange
>> the
>> >> >> >>>>> tests.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> As for the use of matchers vs. visitors, I decided to use a
>> >> >> >>>>> visitor
>> >> >> >>>>> because this is a relatively complex transformation. I would
>> >> >> >>>>> happily
>> >> >> >>>>> use
>> >> >> >>>>> matchers if I thought I could - and I think that some other
>> c++11
>> >> >> >>>>> migrations
>> >> >> >>>>> can easily be written with matchers - but I think the for loop
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I'm not claiming that the matchers needed to match those
>> >> >> >>>> constructs
>> >> >> >>>> are
>> >> >> >>>> all already written - but if we write the questions you need to
>> >> >> >>>> ask
>> >> >> >>>> into
>> >> >> >>>> matchers, other people who want to match similar things can
>> reuse
>> >> >> >>>> them, thus
>> >> >> >>>> amplifying the impact of the code you write ;)
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> checks need some features that matchers don't have (correct
>> me if
>> >> >> >>>>> I'm
>> >> >> >>>>> wrong!). For example, the check for statically allocated
>> >> >> >>>>> array-based
>> >> >> >>>>> loops
>> >> >> >>>>> does this:
>> >> >> >>>>> Given a for loop, determine if:
>> >> >> >>>>>  - The increment statement increments (via ++) exactly one
>> >> >> >>>>> integral
>> >> >> >>>>> index variable, such that the variable is declared and
>> >> >> >>>>> initialized
>> >> >> >>>>> to zero
>> >> >> >>>>> in the init portion of the loop, and that this variable's
>> value
>> >> >> >>>>> is a
>> >> >> >>>>> compared (via <, > or !=) to a nonnegative compile-time
>> constant
>> >> >> >>>>> N
>> >> >> >>>>> in the
>> >> >> >>>>> compare portion.
>> >> >> >>>>>  - The index variable is only ever used in an
>> ArrayIndexExpession
>> >> >> >>>>> indexing a single, statically allocated array A.
>> >> >> >>>>>  - The array A has exactly N elements.
>> >> >> >>>>>  - Additionally, if the ArrayIndexExpression A[index] is ever
>> >> >> >>>>> assigned,
>> >> >> >>>>> passed to a function or copied as a non-const reference, or
>> its
>> >> >> >>>>> address
>> >> >> >>>>> taken with & (I still need to add a check for calls to
>> non-const
>> >> >> >>>>> member
>> >> >> >>>>> functions), the loop variable in the converted version needs
>> to
>> >> >> >>>>> be a
>> >> >> >>>>> non-const reference so that the value will be correctly
>> updated
>> >> >> >>>>> (this step
>> >> >> >>>>> adds the most complexity).
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> ... and the matcher I would want to write for this looks
>> something
>> >> >> >>>> like
>> >> >> >>>> that:
>> >> >> >>>> ForLoop(
>> >> >> >>>>   HasInitialization(Declaration(Id("loopvar",
>> >> >> >>>> HasType(IsIntegral())))),
>> >> >> >>>>   HasCondition(BinaryOperator(
>> >> >> >>>>     HasAnyOperand(DeclarationReference(Id("condref",
>> >> >> >>>> To(Variable())))),
>> >> >> >>>>     HasAnyOperand(IntegerLiteral()))),
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> HasIncrement(UnaryOperator(HasUnaryOperand(DeclarationReference(Id("incref",
>> >> >> >>>> To(Variable()))))), ...),
>> >> >> >>>> )
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> In general, the complex stuff can stay complex, but the simple
>> >> >> >>>> stuff
>> >> >> >>>> shouldn't be lots of code.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Good point - and this is much easier to read than the equivalent
>> >> >> >>> code
>> >> >> >>> I
>> >> >> >>> had written.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> The other types of loop (iterator-based, and array-like
>> >> >> >>>>> container)
>> >> >> >>>>> are
>> >> >> >>>>> more complicated to detect, since there are more permitted
>> ways
>> >> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >> >>>>> define
>> >> >> >>>>> and use the index/iterators. What makes this difficult to do
>> >> >> >>>>> entirely with
>> >> >> >>>>> matchers is the number of back- and cross-references, as well
>> as
>> >> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >> >>>>> different local behaviors based on semantic properties. On the
>> >> >> >>>>> other
>> >> >> >>>>> hand,
>> >> >> >>>>> if there were some kind of backreference-enabled matcher that
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The way to handle the back-refs is to bind the nodes you want,
>> and
>> >> >> >>>> then
>> >> >> >>>> pull them out and compare them in the callback.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I see - make the matcher slightly more general, then filter the
>> >> >> >>> results,
>> >> >> >>> perhaps with a visitor.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Thoughts?
>> >> >> >>>> /Manuel
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> This sounds like it would make at least half the work much
>> easier,
>> >> >> >>> so
>> >> >> >>> I
>> >> >> >>> think it would definitely be worth it to try switching to a
>> >> >> >>> matcher-based
>> >> >> >>> solution. When are matchers supposed to hit mainline (or some
>> extra
>> >> >> >>> cloneable repo) :) ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Matchers are currently in
>> >> >> >> ^cfe/branches/tooling/include/clang/ASTMatchers/...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm currently working on renaming them to camelCase from
>> CamelCase;
>> >> >> >> there's a Tool to help with the conversion though, so no problem
>> in
>> >> >> >> starting
>> >> >> >> now ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> /Manuel
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> -Sam
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> allowed me to locate all matches in a given Stmt, it could be
>> >> >> >>>>> *much*
>> >> >> >>>>> easier to express some parts of the logic, such as the first
>> step
>> >> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >> >>>>> above list. I also suspect that a single-Stmt matcher would
>> >> >> >>>>> better
>> >> >> >>>>> way to
>> >> >> >>>>> handle the last step; currently I track  whether the visitor
>> is
>> >> >> >>>>> looking at a
>> >> >> >>>>> statement or expression which fits any of the
>> const-disqualifying
>> >> >> >>>>> conditions, and a note is made if I run into A[index].
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Does this make the use case clearer? I don't really see a
>> better
>> >> >> >>>>> way
>> >> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >> >>>>> approach this problem, but you guys know the available toolkit
>> >> >> >>>>> far
>> >> >> >>>>> better
>> >> >> >>>>> than I do.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Manuel Klimek
>> >> >> >>>>> <klimek at google.com>
>> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Chandler Carruth
>> >> >> >>>>>> <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> I tend to agree that this should use the Tooling/Refactoring
>> >> >> >>>>>>> stuff.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> However, I'm curious about the best way to structure the
>> >> >> >>>>>>> location
>> >> >> >>>>>>> of
>> >> >> >>>>>>> migration candidates: AST matchers vs. visitor.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> I can almost see the visitor pattern working really well
>> here
>> >> >> >>>>>>> as
>> >> >> >>>>>>> each
>> >> >> >>>>>>> different construct can have a pile of migration logic
>> dropped
>> >> >> >>>>>>> in.... But if
>> >> >> >>>>>>> there is a need to connect dots between more distant
>> >> >> >>>>>>> constructs,
>> >> >> >>>>>>> that
>> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't work so well.... Not at all sure what would be best
>> >> >> >>>>>>> here.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> I've used a combination before - use matchers for the stuff
>> >> >> >>>>>> where
>> >> >> >>>>>> they
>> >> >> >>>>>> work well, then write a very small easy-to-understand
>> visitor if
>> >> >> >>>>>> you need
>> >> >> >>>>>> more. I think that brings down code size by quite a bit -
>> >> >> >>>>>> obviously
>> >> >> >>>>>> just a
>> >> >> >>>>>> gut feeling here.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Manuel Klimek
>> >> >> >>>>>>> <klimek at google.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Sam Panzer
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> <panzer at google.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> In case anyone wanted to take a look, the attached patch
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> includes
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> the tool I've been working on. I create a new binary,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> c++migrate, which
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> attempts to convert for loops in the source files given to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> it.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Most of my
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> focus has been on the FrontedAction, so I skirted all of
>> the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> issues
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> mentioned above by keeping the frontend interaction
>> minimal
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> (i.e. I just
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> call Tooling::ClangTool::run), and the changes are just
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> reported
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> on standard
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> output, if there are any to be made.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> The tool can currently convert for loops that range over
>> (1)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> statically allocated arrays, and (2) Clang-style
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> iterator-based
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> loops (with
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> begin and end iterators defined). All loop variables need
>> to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> declared
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> within the loop's initialization step in order for it to
>> be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> converted,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> though this requirement can potentially be eliminated. I'm
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> working on
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> converting iterator-based loops that call
>> someContainer.end()
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> on
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> each
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> iteration, since they're probably the common case in many
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> codebases.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just for fun, I ran the tool over the 41 .cpp files in
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> lib/Sema,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> and my tool found 71 convertible loops in 17 files. There
>> is
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> plenty more
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> work to go, because it clearly missed some easy ones.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Any input or feedback is welcome!
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> High-level observations:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 1. the handling of the rewrites; any reason not to use the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Tooling/Refactoring stuff? Currently in the patch it looks
>> to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> me
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> like the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> files are not rewritten, but dumped to stdout
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 2. is the reason not to use the matchers here that they're
>> not
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> landed in mainline yet?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> /Manuel
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> -Sam
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Sam Panzer
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> <panzer at google.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'm that intern :)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> -Sam
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM, John Wiegley
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <johnw at boostpro.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Sam Panzer <panzer at google.com> writes:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > In particular, I am working on a tool to convert
>> existing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > C++
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > for loops to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > take advantage of the new C++11 range-based syntax. I
>> can
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > imagine similar
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > tools to replace const with constexpr, macro hacks
>> with
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > static_assert, and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > potentially other common refactorings.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > Thoughts? Suggestions?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> You really must watch this presentation, if you haven't
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> already:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuIOGfcOH0k
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> John Wiegley
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> BoostPro Computing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.boostpro.com
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > 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-dev/attachments/20120712/1b584dd7/attachment.html>