[cfe-dev] clang-refactor usage and development
Kirill Bobyrev via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Aug 25 03:25:33 PDT 2018
I believe that your use-case is slightly different from what Clang-Refactor tries (or, to be honest, is supposed to try) to support. Basically, Clang-Refactor should be able to process refactoring queries from the user coming from the editor, command line or any other way.
From my perspective, your use-case perfectly fits into the scope of Clang-Tidy: what you propose seems more like linting than a refactoring (in case of adding const I can totally see how that can fit into the general refactoring pipeline with the “change type of the variable” request, but it has many pitfalls const-ness change shouldn’t invoke). Both cases look very much like Clang-Tidy checks to me:
* Variable is not mutated anywhere -> change it’s type to `const T`
* Don’t use `int a, b, c;` -> split into `int a; int b; int c;` (I believe we have a tendency to avoid such declarations in the LLVM codebase, certainly a good-to-have check!)
Also, I believe that clang-rename Vim and Emacs integrations were changed for a long long time (although I can see that you recently added Python 3 support, thank you!). I would advise you to use Clangd, which utilises the same infrastructure Clang-Rename does for renamings, but has way better support. I understand that setting up Clangd might be not trivial and I might share my experience soon-ish, so that more people could try it.
To sum up, I would suggest implementing both cases as Clang-Tidy checks. Right now, Clangd exposes compile warnings and Fix-Its to the client, so that user can see potentially problematic places and apply these Fix-Its. AFAIK there is an ongoing effort to integrate Clang-Tidy into Clangd pipeline so that Clang-Tidy warnings and Fix-Its would be also exposed to the user, I am personally very excited about that. Thus said, I believe you might have way better user experience by going this way, because you wouldn’t have to implement stand-alone tools and deal with integration.
Let me know if it works for you!
P.S. You can take a look at the original design: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-September/050641.html <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-September/050641.html>. Unfortunately, nothing major happened ever since, but the idea is still out there, especially now that we have Clangd.
> On 25 Aug 2018, at 11:48, Jonas Toth via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am currently looking into adding new refactorings for clang to utilize
> them both in clang-tidy and clang-refactor.
> While exploring clang-refactor it seemed, that the tool itself does not
> work yet on standalone files, but only for the existing test cases. But
> the code for the tool itself does contain logic to actually apply
> refactorings inplace or to print the new file to stdout.
> Given that clang-refactor still seems to be in an unstable stage, could
> someone point me to the right places to make it work as standalone tool?
> I would be very interested to get it running and maybe write a
> vim-integration similar to clang-rename as well.
> For me it would be very valuable to add the refactoring to a central
> place within clang, as I want to extend some of the clang-tidy checks to
> do more code transformations which relies sometimes on prior
> refactorings. For example to change the const-ness of a variable it is
> necessary to isolate the variable declaration first and change the type
> Transforming `int a, b, c = 0;` into `int a; int b; int c = 0;` is the
> refactoring i am implementing at the moment as well. But my code runs
> within clang-tidy as I was able to experiment better with it.
> Thank you for the help.
> All the best
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev