[cfe-dev] libclang: token annotation

[Argyrios Kyrtzidis]

Cloned to radars, thanks!

On May 28, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Michał Staromiejski wrote:

> Bugs filed, links for reference:
> 
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12970
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12971
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12972
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12975
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12976
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12977
> 
> Regards
> Michal Staromiejski
> 
> On 27 May 2012 15:15, Michał Staromiejski <michal.staromiejski at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your quick reply!
> 
> As for (3), I've realized that with CXTranslationUnit_DetailedPreprocessingRecord option macros are annotated as expected (this option is used by c-index-test, which explains different behavior).
> 
> For other things I'll file bugs as soon as possible.
> 
> Michal Staromiejski
> 
> 
> On 26 May 2012 00:37, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <kyrtzidis at apple.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 2012, at 6:03 AM, Michał Staromiejski wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > First of all, thank you for libclang ;)
> 
> You're welcome :)
> 
> >
> > I'm working on semantic highlight plugin for Code::Blocks IDE based on libclang.
> > So far, everything works quite well, but I've noticed some issues with
> > the functions clang_annotateTokens and (this is probably more specific) clang_getCursor.
> >
> > I'm using svn version (rev. 157460) but the same is with 3.1.
> >
> > From the documentation:
> > "clang_getCursor() maps an arbitrary source location within a translation unit down to the most specific cursor that describes the entity at that location."
> 
> As a sidenote, in case it isn't obvious, if the location cannot be resolved it resolves to the enclosing entity, e.g. if you point at a comment inside a namespace it will give you the namespace.
> 
> >
> > And the weird things begin. Consider the following (valid) C++ code:
> >
> > ---------------------------------8<----------------------------------------
> > #ifdef _MY_MACRO_
> > #define NUM 2
> > #else
> > #define NUM 5
> > #endif
> >
> > template <class T>
> > class A
> > {
> > #ifdef _MY_MACRO_ // (1)
> >     int a; // (2)
> > #else
> >     bool a;
> > #endif
> >
> > public:
> >     static bool array[NUM]; // (3)
> >     operator T();
> > };
> >
> > template <class T> // (4)
> > bool A<T>::array[NUM]; // (5)
> >
> > bool g(A<bool> a)
> > {
> >     return a; // (6)
> > }
> >
> > template <class T> // (4)
> > T f(A<T> a)
> > {
> >     return a;
> > }
> > ---------------------------------8<----------------------------------------
> >
> > Using clang_annotateTokens (clang_getCursor) or c-index-test -test-annotate-tokens (-cursor-at, resp.) everything but the following is OK:
> >
> > (1) Inside any block (class, struct, namespace, ... declaration, function body, etc.) preprocessor directives
> > are not annotated as such.
> 
> Please file a bug for this.
> 
> > (2) If the macro _MY_MACRO_ is not defined, all tokens in "int a;" are annotated in same way as the block they belong to;
> > shouldn't they be annotated as, for example, CXXCursor_InactiveCode (new CXCursorKind value)?
> 
> This is a known limitation, we don't identify inactive source due to preprocessor directives so it resolves to the enclosing scope; it'd be good to do as you said, please file a bug to track it.
> 
> > (3) It's weird but here clang_annotateTokens behaves different from c-index-test: the former annotates the 'NUM' token
> > as 'VarDecl=array' (wrong) and the latter as 'macro expansion=NUM', as expected...
> 
> File a bug with a test case that uses clang_annotateTokens and reproduces this.
> 
> > (4) The whole line is annotated here with CXCursor_FirstInvalid (70) and this concerns all such 'template' lines.
> 
> We should probably identify this as part of the 'array' declaration, and have 'T' be a TemplateTypeParameter, file a bug.
> 
> > (5) The whole line is marked as 'VarDecl=array' (IHMO 'A' should be 'TemplateRef=A' and 'T' should be 'TypeRef=T', 'NUM' behaves similarly as in (3)).
> 
> I believe you are right, file bug.
> 
> > (6) 'a' is annotated as 'CallExpr=operator _Bool', shouldn't be 'DeclRefExpr=a'? It is weird, but in the function 'f' there is no such problem.
> 
> You are right, and, you guessed it, please file a bug.
> 
> >
> > Is it a bug or do I miss something?
> 
> It's better that each separate issue is tracked in different bugs, the work involved varies greatly.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback!
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michal Staromiejski
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20120529/0af2d005/attachment.html>