[cfe-dev] AST-dump
Gábor Kozár
kozargabor at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 15:50:53 PDT 2013
Hi,
I reread your previous e-mail, and I do not know why your matcher is not
working as intended in the example - I cannot find any problems with it.
Did you try filtering out the methods that have been declared before, to
see whether the E(); line or the E::E() line causes the matcher to fail?
> *Did you mean "clang::Redeclarable< decl_type >" class?*
*
*
Yes.*
*
> *I think your suggestion might be useful to me, so that the second
declaration is not taken into account*
*
*
Yes, that is the idea.*
*
> *but I can't still understand why the matcher is doing that if the second
declaration doesn't fit that matcher's conditions.*
*
*
Me neither, it appears that we're missing something.*
*
> *the matcher you are suggesting is previous to this or is included in the
same matcher I'm trying to build?*
*
*
I don't understand what you mean.*
*
Gabor
2013/5/31 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgado at uca.es>
> Did you mean "clang::Redeclarable< decl_type >" class? I think your
> suggestion might be useful to me, so that the second declaration is not
> taken into account, but I can't still understand why the matcher is doing
> that if the second declaration doesn't fit that matcher's conditions.
>
> I will look into this, but the matcher you are suggesting is previous to
> this or is included in the same matcher I'm trying to build?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pedro.
> *El dia 30 may 2013 21:36, Gábor Kozár <kozargabor at gmail.com> escribió:*
>
> Well, try filtering out declarations that are not first declarations - it
> looks to me that would solve your issue.
> I think you'll need to create a new matcher for this. In fact, this might
> be useful to implement generally and contribute to Clang. I believe there
> is a base class for redeclarable AST nodes, but can't remember the exact
> name - you should use that for your matcher.
>
>
> 2013/5/30 Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgado at uca.es>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Default, copy, and move constructors are provided implicitly (under
>> various conditions - obviously if you have members that aren't default,
>> copy, or move constructible, you might not/cannot get all of those)
>>
>> Ok, but this keeps giving me trouble. I've used the isImplicit() matcher
>> to avoid those implicit constructors, but it isn't working how I need yet.
>>
>> recordDecl(
>> unless(hasMethod(constructorDecl(
>> allOf(hasAnyParameter(anything()), unless(isImplicit()))
>>
>> I know I shouldn't use the -ast-dump-xml option, but look at this. If I
>> have a class like this:
>>
>> class E{
>> public:
>> E(){int a = 3;};
>> int e;
>> };
>>
>> This is the dump of the constructor:
>>
>> <CXXConstructor used="1" ptr="0xd7d8070" name="E" prototype="true">
>> <FunctionProtoType ptr="0xd7d8040" canonical="0xd7d8040">
>> <BuiltinType ptr="0xd7d7c30" canonical="0xd7d7c30"/>
>> <parameters/>
>> </FunctionProtoType>
>> <Stmt>
>> CompoundStmt 0xd7d81a8 <./ABC.h:4:6, col:17>
>> `-DeclStmt 0xd7d8198 <col:7, col:16>
>> `-VarDecl 0xd7d8150 <col:7, col:15> a 'int'
>> `-IntegerLiteral 0xd7d8180 <col:15> 'int' 3
>>
>> </Stmt>
>> </CXXConstructor>
>>
>> And this case is working fine. But when the class is this other way:
>>
>> class E{
>> public:
>> E();
>> int e;
>> };
>>
>> E::E(){
>> int a = 3;
>> }
>>
>> The dump creates two CXXConstructors, I suppose one for the declaration
>> and the other for the definition:
>>
>> <CXXConstructor ptr="0xc7de070" name="E" prototype="true">
>> <FunctionProtoType ptr="0xc7de040" canonical="0xc7de040">
>> <BuiltinType ptr="0xc7ddc30" canonical="0xc7ddc30"/>
>> <parameters/>
>> </FunctionProtoType>
>> </CXXConstructor>
>>
>> ....
>>
>> <CXXConstructor used="1" ptr="0xc7de270" name="E" previous="0xc7de070"
>> prototype="true">
>> <FunctionProtoType ptr="0xc7de040" canonical="0xc7de040">
>> <BuiltinType ptr="0xc7ddc30" canonical="0xc7ddc30"/>
>> <parameters/>
>> </FunctionProtoType>
>> <Stmt>
>> CompoundStmt 0xc7de378 <./ABC.h:8:7, line:10:1>
>> `-DeclStmt 0xc7de368 <line:9:2, col:11>
>> `-VarDecl 0xc7de320 <col:2, col:10> a 'int'
>> `-IntegerLiteral 0xc7de350 <col:10> 'int' 3
>>
>> </Stmt>
>> </CXXConstructor>
>>
>> And this is the case my matcher is not retrieving the class E. I don't
>> know if clang it's considering that first CxxConstructor as implicit...
>> The only difference I can see is the "used" attribute. I've tried creating
>> a simple matcher to use the isUsed() method of Decl class:
>>
>> namespace clang{
>> namespace ast_matchers{
>> AST_MATCHER(Decl, isUsed)
>> {
>> return Node.isUsed();
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> but, this is having no influence.
>>
>> Maybe, I'm ignoring something.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>>
>> *El dia 28 may 2013 18:18, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> escribió:*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Pedro Delgado Perez <
>> pedro.delgado at uca.es> wrote:
>>
>> That seems like an approach that works. I don't know that there's a
>> different common property. Why's the default constructor different from the
>> copy constructor here?
>>
>> First of all, sorry but I made a mistake in the example:
>>
>>
>> class A{
>> 1. A(){...}
>> 2. A(int a){...}
>>
>> 3. *A(const A& a){... ...}*
>> };
>>
>> What I mean is that I need to find if there is at least one constructor
>> that explicitly overloads the default constructor so that if I delete the
>> default constructor the compiler won't provide the default constructor. So,
>> my question was totally erroneous as the copy constructor does overload the
>> default constructor if provided, but I don't want to take it into account
>> if it wasn't explicitly provided.
>>
>> A better question is: which are the kind of constructors that the
>> compiler provides if no constructors are explicitly supplied? Only the
>> default and the copy constructor (in some situations)?
>> Default, copy, and move constructors are provided implicitly (under
>> various conditions - obviously if you have members that aren't default,
>> copy, or move constructible, you might not/cannot get all of those)
>>
>> If "unless(allOf(... ...))" is the best solution, could someone enumerate
>> the kind of constructors I must to indicate in that matcher?
>>
>> I'd suggest to not use ast-dump-xml any more. It's basically deprecated,
>> and hopefully it'll be removed soon. -ast-dump gives you all the
>> information (and more).
>>
>> Ok, I didn't know it.
>>
>> ... you can see that one is the default constructor and the other one is
>> the copy constructor. If you just put "G g;" into the code instead of the
>> second class, you'll also see that a simple use of G already triggers the
>> copy constructor to appear. Others are probably better able to explain
>> exactly when a copy constructor is created.
>>
>> Further information will be well received.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pedro.
>> *El dia 27 may 2013 12:24, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> escribió:*
>> Hi Pedro,
>> first, please always send those mails also to cfe-dev. There are people
>> who are much more knowledgable about the AST on that list, and you'll often
>> get better answers faster that way :)
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Pedro Delgado Perez <
>> pedro.delgado at uca.es> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Manuel, but I prefer to ask you all the things I don't know before
>> you reply me:
>>
>> How do I know that a CXXConstructorDecl is a "simple" constructor of a
>> class. I mean, I want to find all the constructors in a class, but not the
>> copy, the move or things like this constructors. I'm not able to find this
>> in the documentation. To clarify this, I'm going to put an example:
>>
>> class A{
>> 1. A(){...}
>> 2. A(int a){...}
>> 3. A(const &a){... ...}
>> };
>>
>> I want to look only for 1 and 2 and not for 3 when I ask:
>> recordDecl(hasMethod(constructDecl(...)));
>>
>> What can I do? Do I have to write "unless(allOf(isCopyConstructor(),
>> isMoveConstructor()...))" for each type of existing constructors?
>> That seems like an approach that works. I don't know that there's a
>> different common property. Why's the default constructor different from the
>> copy constructor here?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Manuel,
>>
>> I would like to ask you something about the AST built by Clang if you
>> don't mind. I've just have a look at your video of introduction to Clang
>> AST (By the way, nice tutorial!) and I think that you may have an answer
>> for my trouble.
>>
>> Look, I was trying to look for classes that had only the default
>> constructor through ASTMatchers. Well, I tested my matcher with the next
>> classes:
>>
>> class G{
>> public:
>> G():a(1){}
>> int a;
>> virtual int ma(int arg);
>> };
>>
>> class L: *public G*{
>> public:
>> L(){v = 1;}
>> int b;
>> int h;
>> virtual int ma(int arg);
>> private:
>> int v;
>> int f();
>> };
>>
>> My matcher only retrieved the class 'L' and not the 'G'. I was wondering
>> what would be the problem when I had a look to the ast-dump-xml option:
>> I'd suggest to not use ast-dump-xml any more. It's basically deprecated,
>> and hopefully it'll be removed soon. -ast-dump gives you all the
>> information (and more).
>>
>> <CXXRecord ptr="0xd695f30" name="G" typeptr="0xd695f80">
>> <CXXRecord ptr="0xd695fd0" name="G" typeptr="0xd695f80"/>
>> <AccessSpec ptr="0xd696020" access="public"/>
>> *<CXXConstructor* used="1" ptr="0xd696080" name="G" prototype="true">
>> <FunctionProtoType ptr="0xd696050" canonical="0xd696050">
>> <BuiltinType ptr="0xd695c40" canonical="0xd695c40"/>
>> <parameters/>
>> </FunctionProtoType>
>> <Stmt>
>> CompoundStmt 0xd696450 <tst.cpp:7:10, col:11>
>> </Stmt>
>> </CXXConstructor>
>>
>> ....
>>
>> *<CXXConstructor* ptr="0xd6aefc0" name="G" prototype="true"
>> inline="true">
>> <FunctionProtoType ptr="0xd6af050" canonical="0xd6af030"
>> exception_spec="unevaluated">
>> <BuiltinType ptr="0xd695c40" canonical="0xd695c40"/>
>> <parameters>
>> <LValueReferenceType ptr="0xd696240" canonical="0xd696240">
>> <QualType const="true">
>> <RecordType ptr="0xd695f80" canonical="0xd695f80">
>> <CXXRecord ref="0xd695f30"/>
>> </RecordType>
>> </QualType>
>> </LValueReferenceType>
>> </parameters>
>> </FunctionProtoType>
>> <ParmVar ptr="0xd6af070" name="" initstyle="c">
>> <LValueReferenceType ptr="0xd696240" canonical="0xd696240">
>> <QualType const="true">
>> <RecordType ptr="0xd695f80" canonical="0xd695f80">
>> <CXXRecord ref="0xd695f30"/>
>> </RecordType>
>> </QualType>
>> </LValueReferenceType>
>> </ParmVar>
>> </CXXConstructor>
>> </CXXRecord>
>>
>> Why class 'G' has two constructors? If I change the test program in order
>> that class 'L' doesn't inherits from class 'G', this doesn't happen (class
>> 'G' only has one constructor in the ast-dump-xml) Could you lend me a hand?
>> If you look at -ast-dump:
>> $ clang -cc1 -ast-dump t4.cc
>> <snip>
>> |-CXXRecordDecl 0x37faf80 <t4.cc:1:1, line:6:1> class G
>> <snip>
>> | |-CXXConstructorDecl 0x37fb1c0 <line:3:3, col:15> G 'void (void)'
>> | | |-CXXCtorInitializer Field 0x37fb290 'a' 'int'
>> | | | |-IntegerLiteral 0x382d018 <col:11> 'int' 1
>> | | `-CompoundStmt 0x382d0a0 <col:14, col:15>
>> <snip>
>> | `-CXXConstructorDecl 0x382da70 <col:7> G 'void (const class G &)' inline
>> | `-ParmVarDecl 0x382f820 <col:7> 'const class G &'
>> <snip>
>> ... you can see that one is the default constructor and the other one is
>> the copy constructor. If you just put "G g;" into the code instead of the
>> second class, you'll also see that a simple use of G already triggers the
>> copy constructor to appear. Others are probably better able to explain
>> exactly when a copy constructor is created.
>> cheers,
>> /Manuel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130610/a573eed6/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list