[cfe-dev] Source to source transformation w/ comments

[Andre Vehreschild via cfe-dev]

Well, how is this supposed to guide me on the right way? I mean even when I stick to the Ast when transforming, the comments aren't in there one way or the other. And given that we are transforming to Java it will get somewhat difficult to store the transformed program in the existing Ast structures, cause they aren't made for Java. So what are you proposing, David?

Regards,
Andre

Am 6. Mai 2016 19:19:38 MESZ, schrieb David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
>Generally roundtripping through ASTs is not something that's
>encouraged/reliable for reasons such as this. Most tools doing source
>transformations do so by editing the original code, rather than
>producing a
>new derived piece of code.
>
>On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Andre Vehreschild via cfe-dev <
>cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am working on a project to rework a given program having a large
>code
>> base. While using Clang's fine and elaborate ways to understand and
>> massage an AST, I am missing a way to parse and transfer comments. I
>> have seen some efforts so far to get doxygen comments for methods and
>> so on. But what about the comments that document the working of
>> functions, i.e., all the comment that are in the .cpp files?
>>
>> Is there any support on this?
>>
>> What would be a good way to get them transfered? A new AST node on
>> stmt-level to refer to a comment in the SourceManager, i.e., quite
>light
>> weight? Or are there other loose ends that I can attach to?
>>
>> Because I am constructing the transformed code in a bottom-up way
>> (bottom being the leaves of the AST), and am just streaming the
>result
>> into a stringstream, I can't traverse the resulting code a second
>time
>> and inject the comments while looking for source locations.
>>
>> Furthermore would it be appreciated to have a way of control on the
>> transformation process, i.e. tell the clang-tool that for a certain
>> routine it should do something specific. I.e. a directive should be
>> available. Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> I am willing to develop and provide patches to get that
>functionality,
>> but for this I like know a design that would be well perceived and
>has
>> chances to make it into clang, i.e., not to waste the effort.
>>
>> - Andre
>> --
>> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>

-- 
Andre Vehreschild
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160506/5b5311bf/attachment.html>