[cfe-dev] ASTMatchers: isVirtual and isOverride
Gábor Kozár
kozargabor at gmail.com
Mon Apr 22 12:52:30 PDT 2013
Hi,
> *I found isWritten() member for CXXCtorInitializer:*
Nice find, I actually did not know about this.*
*
> *Ok. But I don't know where I should put or send these matchers to share
them. Could you indicate me?*
*
*
In the source code, the place for these is ASTMatchers.h. When you have
something that you would like to propose to be integrated into the clang
repository, I think what you need to do is send an e-mail to this mailing
list, with the diff attached (that shows what changes you made), and ask
for it to reviewed. But you probably should look at the website and see if
there's any guideline for this - or just ask it on the mailing list.*
*
> *When you say "they allow you to run a matcher on the specified node, not
the whole AST." you mean something like this?:*
*
*
The code snippet you sent shows how to retrieve a node that has been
accepted and bound by a matcher.*
*
What I mean is that if you have a CXXRecordDecl* object for example (from
whatever source), and you want to find some nodes in it that match a
specific condition - for example, you want to check if another type is used
anywhere within this specific C++ class - you can use
clang::ast_matchers::match, because you only need the nodes that satisfy
this condition inside the record declaration that you have, and not
anywhere in the AST.
To be honest I'm not sure what causes the confusion here, I think this is
fairly self-explanatory.
> *The problem for me is that I'll have to make some source-to-source
translations: sometimes I'll have to modify the .cpp file and sometimes the
.h (or even both of them) For instance, if i want to know if a certain
method is declared as "virtual", I would need to examinate the .h file.
Thus, I cannot exclude all .h files. So, how can I manage this?*
*
*
Well, you exclude just the system header files in the match callback, as
I've showed before, using SourceManager :: isInSystemHeader and
isInExternCSystemHeader.*
*
> *but it is still matching nodes in other files, such as ostream,
bits/basic_ios.h or bits/streambuf_interator.h because I included the
iostream header. I need to avoid all these nodes, but I don't know how to
do it.*
*
*
You'll need to show me some more code than that. How does your match
callback function look like? What is FullLocation?*
*
> *I see that I can retrieve some nodes using matchers and then use a
RecursiveASTVisitor on that nodes, but I can't clearly see the contrary: if
I'm visiting only a kind of node, I know that I can directly use the
methods of that class, but how could I use a matcher in the same way as in
the example below?:*
*
*
Both RecursiveASTVisitor and the matchers serve the exact same purpose, and
they work in exactly the same way (in fact, the matchers use
RecursiveASTVisitor internally) - the only different is that matchers are
higher-level concepts, allowing for a more intuitive definition of match
conditions. It's like a regular expression for ASTs.
*
*
When you work with matchers, you need two things: a matcher expression,
constructed from the matcher functions like functionDecl(), isDefinition(),
has(), allOf(), etc. and a match callback, i.e. a function that will be
called for every AST node the matcher accepts while it is traversing the
AST (i.e. running). You can use the .bind() method of the matchers to bind
nodes accepted by the specified matcher to a name, and later retrieve it in
the callback using result.Nodes.getNodeAs<T>. For example: *
functionDecl(has(compoundStmt().bind("c"))).bind("f")*. When this matcher
expression accepts an AST node, and runs the callback, you can access the
matched FunctionDecl and CompoundStmt nodes by *
result.Nodes.getNodeAs<FunctionDecl>("f")* and *
result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CompoundStmt>("c")*, respectively. What you with
these afterwards is up to you - if you want, you can even run another
matcher on them using clang::ast_matchers::match, as I've already explained
above.*
*
In your example code, the matcher callback retrieves a bound node (a
ForStmt) with the name of "forLoop", and then writes its AST to the
console. For example you can use with this matcher expression: *
forStmt(unless(has(compoundStmt())))*, which will cause the AST of all for
loops whose body is just a single statement with the {} brackets to appear
on the screen.
Gabor
2013/4/21 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es>
> Hi,
>
> This is indeed something I haven't considered, but should be easy to fix.
> Looking at the documentation for CXXCtorInitializer, you'll see that
> there's a member called isBaseInitializer(). The other thing you'll need to
> check (probably, if that is what you need) for is whether the base ctor
> call is implicit, which is probably done best by constraining the
> CXXConstructExpr with argumentCountIs(0). Putting together a custom matcher
> using these should be simple.
>
> I found isWritten() member for CXXCtorInitializer:
> "Returns true if this initializer is explicitly written in the source
> code."
> And finally, I accomplished what I wanted. Now, only B constructor is
> matched in:
>
> class A{
> public: A(){}
> };
>
> class B: public A{
> public: int b, h;
> B():A(){b=0; h=0;}
> };
>
> class C: public A{
> public C(){}
> };
>
> But thanks for the members you have indicated: i'm sure I'll have to use
> them in the future.
>
>
> Also keep in mind that if you put together a generic and useful enough
> matcher, you should totally contribute it as a patch, so that others in
> need of a similar thing have it available in the future.
>
> Ok. But I don't know where I should put or send these matchers to share
> them. Could you indicate me?
>
>
> Yes, you need to use these in the matcher callback. It is indeed
> inefficient, but we've been unable to come up with any better solution. The
> problem is in the underlying compiler technology, i.e. the nature of header
> files.*
> *
> > *Is it possible to search for nodes only in some files indicated by the
> user?*
> *
> *
> Sure, take a look at the clang::ast_matchers::match functions - they allow
> you to run a matcher on the specified node, not the whole AST.
> Unfortunately I do not think this will help you in this case, as you cannot
> distinguish the parts of the TU coming from system header files and the
> parts coming from user files at the AST level.
>
> Ok, that's a setback i should have in mind. When you say "they allow you
> to run a matcher on the specified node, not the whole AST." you mean
> something like this?:
>
> Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<clang::ForStmt>("forLoop"))
>
> This is the way I retrieve the nodes I need to match at this moment.
>
> The problem for me is that I'll have to make some source-to-source
> translations: sometimes I'll have to modify the .cpp file and sometimes the
> .h (or even both of them) For instance, if i want to know if a certain
> method is declared as "virtual", I would need to examinate the .h file.
> Thus, I cannot exclude all .h files. So, how can I manage this?
>
> *> I have seen that every file has "id" and, for instance, instead of
> using "isInSystemHeader" and "isInExternCSystemHeader" could i do the next?:
> *
> *
> *
> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do here... As the error
> you're getting, it's because getSourceManager is missing the paranthesis,
> i.e. the () that would indicate it's a method call.
>
> What I was trying to do is to examinate the nodes only from the file
> provided by the user in the execution (for instance, if I run
> bin/default-constructor test.cpp, I only want the nodes from test.cpp) I
> tought that with member getMainFileID() I would achieve what I wanted, but
> this isn't working as expected (sorry for the error of getSourceManager(),
> but I tested it really quick and late only to write the message). I have
> also tried with:
> if (!Context->getSourceManager().isInSystemHeader(FullLocation) && !
> Context->getSourceManager().isInExternCSystemHeader(FullLocation)){
> ...
> }
>
> but it is still matching nodes in other files, such as ostream,
> bits/basic_ios.h or bits/streambuf_interator.h because I included the
> iostream header. I need to avoid all these nodes, but I don't know how to
> do it.
>
> Yes, that's quite possible, as I'm using clang 3.2. Nonetheless, you
> should be able to figure out what the issue is, as I've given you a draft
> (a pattern, if you will).
>
> Ok. I'm going to check this like you taugth me ;)
>
> And a last question if you don't mind. I based my examples for the moment
> in the matcher shown in:
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchersTutorial.html
> But you told me that it's possible to merge the usage of Matchers and
> RecursiveASTVisitor as in:
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/RAVFrontendAction.html
> I see that I can retrieve some nodes using matchers and then use a
> RecursiveASTVisitor on that nodes, but I can't clearly see the contrary: if
> I'm visiting only a kind of node, I know that I can directly use the
> methods of that class, but how could I use a matcher in the same way as in
> the example below?:
>
> virtual void run(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) { if (const ForStmt *FS = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<clang::ForStmt>("forLoop")) FS->dump(); }
>
> I hope you can understand what I mean.
>
> Thank you for all your help,
>
> Pedro
>
> *El dia 21 abr 2013 01:43, Gábor Kozár <kozargabor at gmail.com> escribió:*
>
> Hi,
> > *The default constructor of C is also matched as there is an implicit
> call to the default constructor of class A (and effectively, this is an
> expression and not a declaration as I said in the last message). So, I've
> been thinking about it and, though I don't have the solution, I'm quite
> sure we have to change "anything()" inside "hasAnyConstructorInitializer()"
> to avoid this exception. Any suggestion?*
> *
> *
> This is indeed something I haven't considered, but should be easy to fix.
> Looking at the documentation for CXXCtorInitializer, you'll see that
> there's a member called isBaseInitializer(). The other thing you'll need to
> check (probably, if that is what you need) for is whether the base ctor
> call is implicit, which is probably done best by constraining the
> CXXConstructExpr with argumentCountIs(0). Putting together a custom matcher
> using these should be simple.*
> *
> Also keep in mind that if you put together a generic and useful enough
> matcher, you should totally contribute it as a patch, so that others in
> need of a similar thing have it available in the future.
> > *On the other hand, I've been trying to use the methods you told me,
> but I have to use those methods after the matcher execution, haven't I?
> This is a bit inefficiently as the mathcer is looking up in some files that
> are not needed.*
> *
> *
> Yes, you need to use these in the matcher callback. It is indeed
> inefficient, but we've been unable to come up with any better solution. The
> problem is in the underlying compiler technology, i.e. the nature of header
> files.*
> *
> > *Is it possible to search for nodes only in some files indicated by the
> user?*
> *
> *
> Sure, take a look at the clang::ast_matchers::match functions - they allow
> you to run a matcher on the specified node, not the whole AST.
> Unfortunately I do not think this will help you in this case, as you cannot
> distinguish the parts of the TU coming from system header files and the
> parts coming from user files at the AST level.
> *
> *
> *> I have seen that every file has "id" and, for instance, instead of
> using "isInSystemHeader" and "isInExternCSystemHeader" could i do the next?:
> *
> *
> *
> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do here... As the error
> you're getting, it's because getSourceManager is missing the paranthesis,
> i.e. the () that would indicate it's a method call.
> > *Umm... What a strange thing... I will get over this one more time and
> see if I did something wrong.
> Maybe something is missing or is different in AStMatchersInternal or
> ASTMatchersMacros.*
> Yes, that's quite possible, as I'm using clang 3.2. Nonetheless, you
> should be able to figure out what the issue is, as I've given you a draft
> (a pattern, if you will).*
> *
> Good luck!
> Gabor
>
>
> 2013/4/21 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es>
>
>> Hi and thanks again,
>>
>> I clearly expressed incorretly the problem. I'll try to explain it more
>> in detail:
>>
>> If we have the classes below:
>>
>> class A{
>> public: A(){}
>> };
>>
>> class B: public A{
>> public: int b, h;
>> B():A(){b=0; h=0;}
>> };
>>
>> class C: public A{
>> public C(){}
>> };
>>
>> I want my matcher retrieves ONLY the default constructor declaration of
>> B. However this is what happened with the matcher you proposed me:
>>
>> CXXConstructorDecl 0xa1f6080
>> </home/pedro/clang-llvm/build/testClases.cpp:14:3, col:25> B 'void (void)'
>> |-CXXCtorInitializer 'class A'
>> | |-CXXConstructExpr 0xa1f6608 <col:8, col:10> 'class A' 'void (void)'
>> `-CompoundStmt 0xa1f6710 <col:11, col:25>
>> |-BinaryOperator 0xa1f6698 <col:12, col:16> 'int' lvalue '='
>> | |-MemberExpr 0xa1f6660 <col:12> 'int' lvalue ->b 0xa1f6100
>> | | `-CXXThisExpr 0xa1f6650 <col:12> 'class B *' this
>> | `-IntegerLiteral 0xa1f6680 <col:16> 'int' 0
>> `-BinaryOperator 0xa1f66f8 <col:19, col:23> 'int' lvalue '='
>> |-MemberExpr 0xa1f66c0 <col:19> 'int' lvalue ->h 0xa1f6140
>> | `-CXXThisExpr 0xa1f66b0 <col:19> 'class B *' this
>> `-IntegerLiteral 0xa1f66e0 <col:23> 'int' 0
>> Found declaration at 14:3
>> CXXConstructorDecl 0xa1f68b0
>> </home/pedro/clang-llvm/build/testClases.cpp:25:3, col:7> C 'void (void)'
>> |-CXXCtorInitializer 'class A'
>> | |-CXXConstructExpr 0xa1f6c08 <col:3> 'class A' 'void (void)'
>> `-CompoundStmt 0xa1f6c58 <col:6, col:7>
>> Found declaration at 25:3
>>
>> The default constructor of C is also matched as there is an implicit call
>> to the default constructor of class A (and effectively, this is an
>> expression and not a declaration as I said in the last message). So, I've
>> been thinking about it and, though I don't have the solution, I'm quite
>> sure we have to change "anything()" inside "hasAnyConstructorInitializer()"
>> to avoid this exception. Any suggestion?
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, I've been trying to use the methods you told me, but I
>> have to use those methods after the matcher execution, haven't I? This is a
>> bit inefficiently as the mathcer is looking up in some files that are not
>> needed. Is it possible to search for nodes only in some files indicated by
>> the user? Normally, a class is declared in a .h file and defined in the
>> .cpp file and i would like to search in both of them.
>> I have seen that every file has "id" and, for instance, instead of using
>> "isInSystemHeader" and "isInExternCSystemHeader" could i do the next?:
>>
>> class DefaultConstructor : public MatchFinder::MatchCallback {
>> public :
>> virtual void run(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {
>> ASTContext *Context = Result.Context;
>> FileID mainFileID = Context->getSourceManager.getMainFileID();
>> if (const CXXConstructorDecl *FS =
>> Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<clang::CXXConstructorDecl>("methods")){
>> FullSourceLoc FullLocation = Context->getFullLoc(FS->getLocStart());
>> if (FullLocation.isValid() && FullLocation.getFileID() ==
>> mainFileID)
>> ... ...
>> }
>> }
>> };
>>
>> ( I got an error with this: reference to non-static member function must
>> be called
>> FileID mainFileID = (Context->getSourceManager).getMainFileID();
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ )
>>
>> > *Thank you for your time Gábor. I have put this, but I don't know why
>> it doesn't fetch any nodes at all... Could you test this?
>>
>> *
>> I did test it, and worked fine for me. Not sure what could be the issue.
>>
>> Umm... What a strange thing... I will get over this one more time and see
>> if I did something wrong.
>> Maybe something is missing or is different in AStMatchersInternal or
>> ASTMatchersMacros.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> *El dia 19 abr 2013 16:28, Gábor Kozár <kozargabor at gmail.com> escribió:*
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > *Thank you for your time Gábor. I have put this, but I don't know why
>> it doesn't fetch any nodes at all... Could you test this?
>>
>> *
>>
>> I did test it, and worked fine for me. Not sure what could be the issue.
>>
>> > *An implicit node is detected: the default constructor of class A in
>> the list of constructors in default constructor of class B. So, I tried to
>> fix this doing this:*
>>
>> I believe this is what you need then, as Manuel suggested:
>>
>> constructorDecl(isDefinition(), parameterCountIs(0), unless(isImplicit()),
>> anyOf(hasAnyConstructorInitializer(anything()),
>> has(compoundStmt(has(stmt())))));
>> How you compose your matchers dictate how they will behave. Lets take a
>> simple example: functionDecl(isDefinition()). Here the fact that
>> isDefinition() was given as a parameter to functionDecl() indicates that it
>> refines that matcher, i.e. imposes further conditions that have to be met
>> in order for a node to be matched.
>> Now with this logic, lets look at what you tried:
>> withInitializer(constructorDecl(isImplicit()))
>>
>> This means something like "an initializer that is an implicit constructor
>> declaration" - which obviously makes no sense, and thanks to template
>> voodoo magic, it doesn't compile either. The reason is that withInitializer
>> expects a Matcher<Expr>, that is, a matcher that matches certain Exprs
>> (that meet a certain criteria). constructorDecl() yields a
>> Matcher<CXXConstructorDecl>, because it is a matcher that accepts
>> CXXConstructorDecl objects.
>>
>> > *In addition, I would like to work only with the code that is explicit
>> and for example when I try to match "methodDecl(isOverride())" a lot of
>> implicit methods (and even methods from other files apart of mine) are
>> detected with this matcher. How can I avoid this?*
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "implicit" methods here. Obviously you'll
>> get matches in header files as well, most notably, system header files.
>> SourceManager::isInSystemHeader and isInExternCSystemHeader is what you're
>> looking for if you want to avoid that - you'll place such a check in your
>> matcher callback function.
>>
>> Gabor
>>
>>
>> 2013/4/19 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es>
>>
>>> Thank you ver much both of you, it really helps:
>>>
>>> All of the ways you cite make sense. What you want really depends on
>>> what kind of control you want. Note that you can always easily start with
>>> AST matchers to find higher level things you're interested in, and then
>>> drill down through the AST nodes by calling the methods or even by using a
>>> RecursiveASTVisitor on a node...
>>>
>>> Ok, Manuel. I need to study this a bit more to catch on the best way
>>> for me, but it's good to know I can merge both strategies.
>>>
>>> I have put together quickly the matcher that I believe suits your needs,
>>> just so that you can see how it works:
>>>
>>> namespace clang {
>>> namespace ast_matchers {
>>>
>>> using namespace clang::ast_matchers::internal;
>>>
>>> AST_MATCHER(CXXConstructorDecl, defaultNonTrivialCtor)
>>> {
>>> return Node.isThisDeclarationADefinition()
>>> && Node.isDefaultConstructor()
>>> && (Node.getNumCtorInitializers() != 0 ||
>>> !Node.hasTrivialBody());
>>> }
>>>
>>> } // ast_matchers
>>> } // clang
>>>
>>> (Don't forget to include ASTMatchers.h, ASTMatchersInternal.h and
>>> ASTMatchersMacros.h)
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time Gábor. I have put this, but I don't know why it
>>> doesn't fetch any nodes at all... Could you test this?
>>>
>>> constructorDecl(isDefinition(), parameterCountIs(0),
>>> anyOf(hasAnyConstructorInitializer(anything()),
>>> has(compoundStmt(has(stmt())))));
>>> (I did a quick test, and seems to work as intended, but you should make
>>> sure to test it thoroughly yourself.)
>>>
>>> I have put this as well and this time does it works, but indeed it needs
>>> something more, because if we have:
>>>
>>> class A{
>>> public:
>>> A(){}
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>> class B: public A{
>>> public:
>>> B(){}
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>> An implicit node is detected: the default constructor of class A in the
>>> list of constructors in default constructor of class B. So, I tried to fix
>>> this doing this:
>>>
>>> constructorDecl(isDefinition(), parameterCountIs(0),
>>> anyOf(hasAnyConstructorInitializer(*
>>> unless(withInitializer(constructorDecl(isImplicit())))*)),
>>> has(compoundStmt(has(stmt())))));
>>>
>>> But, I newbie in this and it doesn't work as constructorDecl returns a
>>> Decl and withInitializer a Expr (i think). How could I do this? Sorry for
>>> this, but I would like to have at least an example complete.
>>>
>>> In addition, I would like to work only with the code that is explicit
>>> and for example when I try to match "methodDecl(isOverride())" a lot of
>>> implicit methods (and even methods from other files apart of mine) are
>>> detected with this matcher. How can I avoid this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>> *El dia 19 abr 2013 13:50, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> escribió:*
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Pedro Delgado Perez <
>>> pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi again,
>>>>
>>>> Well, I've just understood that not all the methods in a class have a
>>>> matcher related. For instance, I'm trying to match the default constructor
>>>> declaration of a class:
>>>>
>>>> class Foo {
>>>> public:
>>>> *Foo(){}*
>>>> Foo(int a){... ...}
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And in CXXConstructorDecl we have isDefaultConstructor(), but I can't
>>>> find an AST_MATCHER to do this. So, I suppose I would have to implement a
>>>> new AST_MATCHER like this:
>>>>
>>>> *AST_MATCHER(CXXConstructorDecl, isDefaultConstructor){*
>>>> *return Node.isDefaultConstructor();*
>>>> *}*
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it? But, this happens often, so... would you recommend me use
>>>> AST_MATCHERS? Or it would be better to do something like it is explained in
>>>> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/RAVFrontendAction.html ? This way, I can
>>>> directly use the methods in the classes. For instance:
>>>>
>>>> bool VisitCXXConstructorDecl(CXXConstructorDecl *Declaration) { if (Declaration->isDefaultConstructor()) {
>>>>
>>>> I have to visit a lot of kind of nodes with different features, not
>>>> only this.
>>>>
>>> All of the ways you cite make sense. What you want really depends on
>>> what kind of control you want. Note that you can always easily start with
>>> AST matchers to find higher level things you're interested in, and then
>>> drill down through the AST nodes by calling the methods or even by using a
>>> RecursiveASTVisitor on a node...
>>> Cheers,
>>> /Manuel
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please, I need a path to get down to work.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>> Pedro.
>>>>
>>>> *El dia 19 abr 2013 01:58, Gábor Kozár <kozargabor at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What version are you using? The matchers isOverride() and isVirtual() I
>>>> know for certain were not in version 3.2, and can only be found on SVN (in
>>>> this file:
>>>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> Nonetheless, you can implement them all very easily manually, or just
>>>> indeed copy their implementation from the link above. Also, instead of
>>>> isDefaultConstructor(), you could use argumentCountIs(0).
>>>>
>>>> Gabor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/4/18 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm newbie using ASTMatchers and I'm trying to learn little by little
>>>>> how to use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was basing on the matcher recordDecl(hasName("Foo"), isDerivedFrom("Bar"))
>>>>> shown in http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchers.html trying to
>>>>> include new features. For instance, I tried to look for classes which have
>>>>> at least one virtual method:
>>>>>
>>>>> recordDecl(hasName("Foo"), isDerivedFrom("Bar"),
>>>>> hasMethod(isVirtual()))
>>>>>
>>>>> Or I tried to match protected overriden methods:
>>>>>
>>>>> methodDecl(allOf(isProtected(), isOverride());
>>>>>
>>>>> But neither of them worked as it couldn't find "isOverride" and
>>>>> "isVirtual" identifiers. I was trying a lot of combinations, but I can't
>>>>> understand this well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I tried to look for the the default constructor of a certain
>>>>> class:
>>>>>
>>>>> constructorDecl(hasName("Foo"), isDefaultConstructor())
>>>>>
>>>>> but this is wrong. What I'm doing bad? Please, any information you
>>>>> give me will be fine to me to understand how to use matchers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20130422/4081583f/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list