[cfe-dev] Question of compile class
Nikola Smiljanic
popizdeh at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 16:32:31 PST 2014
I'm not sure how long make takes to run if there's nothing to compile. But
you should definitely check out cmake + ninja.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
> yes, i know, the makefile will skip compiling the code if i do not change
> them, but it will still
> go through some directories and say "nothing to do" i guess.
>
> it is ok, i can use the current solution. Thank you!
>
>
> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How will it waste time if you don't change it?
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>
>> I am writing a source to source tool which need to add some new keywords
>> in the clang source file, so this tool can parse
>> the input file with my new keywords, now this tool is still under
>> developing and debugging, each time when i want to
>> recompile this tool i do not want to involve llvm stuff, because it will
>> waste some time......
>>
>>
>> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why exactly do you want an out of source build if your using makefiles?
>> It's beneficial with Visual Studio but I don't see the reason for it if
>> you're building from the command line?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> .... i have no idea of cmake ....
>>>
>>> i use makefile under linux, so who could help?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I only know how to do this with cmake.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> i think i get your point and that is what i expect.
>>>>
>>>> you mean that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. make a standalone directory for Clang not in llvm/tools
>>>>
>>>> 2. compile both llvm and clang as usual
>>>>
>>>> 3. if i modify Clang source file, i just execute the Makefile inside
>>>> clang/ directory, so it
>>>> will just re-compile the Clang file without checking llvm files
>>>>
>>>> is there any instructions to do this?
>>>>
>>>> Especially in step 2, if i compile in this way i guess i will break the
>>>> dependence relationship in "configure" file?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> xiaohui
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/06/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The best you can do is compile clang "out of source". Meaning the clang
>>>> directory stands on its own and not in llvm/projects. This makes a
>>>> difference if you're generating Visual Studio solution file as you won't
>>>> have to load llvm projects. But llvm must be built.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. clang uses a lot of LLVM's core libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jingyue
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu Nov 06 2014 at 9:14:49 AM Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am writing a source to source tool and adding new keywords in the
>>>>>> clang source file(i just care about the AST),
>>>>>> is there a way to just compile the clang frontend source file but not
>>>>>> including llvm source file?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely
>>>>>> xiaohui
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/03/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am confusing here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Traverse method visits AST nodes that form a tree. CXXRecordDecl
>>>>>>> is the parent of each of its CXXMethodDecls and FieldDecls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CXXMethodDecls ( FieldDecls ) is not a member of CXXRecordDecl
>>>>>>> and also does not inherit from CXXRecordDecl, so how could
>>>>>>> you define them as parent-child relationship?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CXXRecordDecl contains CXXMethodDecls and RecordDecl contains
>>>>>> FieldDecls. They're just stored in the DeclContext class but are exposed
>>>>>> with method_begin/method_end and field_begin/field_end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. WalkUpFrom method visits the class hierarchy of a single AST node.
>>>>>>> CXXRecordDecl inherits RecordDecl which inherits TagDecl etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> here TagDecl has three direct parents, so will WalkUpFrom be applied
>>>>>>> to these three classes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> TagDecl does have three super classes but only one of them is also an
>>>>>> AST node. AST is built from declarations, statements and types. DeclContext
>>>>>> represents a declaration context and structs/classes introduce one. They
>>>>>> are also redeclarable (forward declaration) which is what Redeclarable
>>>>>> class keeps track of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sincerely
>>>>>>> xiaohui
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/03/14, *Nikola Smiljanic * <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two parent-child relationships at play.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Traverse method visits AST nodes that form a tree. CXXRecordDecl
>>>>>>> is the parent of each of its CXXMethodDecls and FieldDecls. This is what
>>>>>>> you'll see with clang -cc1 -ast-dump
>>>>>>> 2. WalkUpFrom method visits the class hierarchy of a single AST
>>>>>>> node. CXXRecordDecl inherits RecordDecl which inherits TagDecl etc. Think
>>>>>>> of serialization, to serialize CXXRecordDecl you'd first want to serialize
>>>>>>> everything from the base class and so on recursively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Xiaohui Chen <xchen422 at uwo.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am using Clang as the frontend of my project, but i am confusing
>>>>>>>> of the following statements.
>>>>>>>> PS: i am a newbie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These tasks are done by three groups of methods, respectively:00089 /// 1. TraverseDecl(Decl *x) does task #1. It is the entry point00090 /// for traversing an AST rooted at x. This method simply00091 /// dispatches (i.e. forwards) to TraverseFoo(Foo *x) where Foo00092 /// is the dynamic type of *x, which calls WalkUpFromFoo(x) and00093 /// then recursively visits the child nodes of x.00094 /// TraverseStmt(Stmt *x) and TraverseType(QualType x) work00095 /// similarly.00096 /// 2. WalkUpFromFoo(Foo *x) does task #2. It does not try to visit00097 /// any child node of x. Instead, it first calls WalkUpFromBar(x)00098 /// where Bar is the direct parent class of Foo (unless Foo has00099 /// no parent), and then calls VisitFoo(x) (see the next list item).00100 /// 3. VisitFoo(Foo *x) does task #3.00101 ///00102 /// These three method groups are tiered (Traverse* > WalkUpFrom* >00103 /// Visit*). A method (e.g. Traverse*) may call methods from the same00104 /// tier (e.g. other Traverse*) or one tier lower (e.g. WalkUpFrom*).00105 /// It may not call methods from a higher tier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the above statement, the calling relationship between
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> functions are organized in this way in general:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Traversal*()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> .......
>>>>>>>> WalkUpFrom*();
>>>>>>>> .......
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WalkUpFrom*()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> .......
>>>>>>>> Visit*();
>>>>>>>> .......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> am i right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this statement:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 00096 /// 2. WalkUpFromFoo(Foo *x) does task #2. It does not try to visit00097 /// any child node of x. Instead, it first calls WalkUpFromBar(x)00098 /// where Bar is the direct parent class of Foo (unless Foo has00099 /// no parent), and then calls VisitFoo(x) (see the next list item).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what do you mean by saying "the direct parent class of Foo"?
>>>>>>>> why i need to visit the parent class before i visit the current
>>>>>>>> class?
>>>>>>>> what is the purpose? Could you please give me a short example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely
>>>>>>>> xiaohui
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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/20141107/30249e1c/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list