On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Sam Panzer <[email protected]> wrote: > I also noticed that a hasDeclaration matcher which serves a different > purpose. I think the new hasDecl matcher needs a new name...
Good point. Any ideas for how to differentiate "hasDeclaration" in terms of "something that declares what's used here" vs. "hasDeclaration" in terms of "aggregates a declaration that matches"? > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Sam Panzer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here's a new version of the DeclStmt patch. Changes include: >> - Fixed comments by declCountIs and hasSingleDecl >> - Added hasDecl in the spirit of hasArgument >> - Changed the loop to std::distance (std::advance in hasDecl) >> - Added a few more test cases. >> >> And to explain the for loop in the test case for hasSingleDecl, I >> discovered that Clang explodes some DeclStmts with multiple declarations >> such as these: >> int a, b; // toplevel declarations >> According to the AST dump, Clang treats this line as two separate >> DeclStmts, rather than one DeclStmt with two Decls. This also happens to >> declarations inside namespaces, and I'm not really sure where else. Maybe >> someone else has a better idea how to describe when the AST doesn't reflect >> the source the same way? >> >> The other patch will be sent on a fork of the previous discussion. >> Any new comments? >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> + // We could use Node.decl_begin() - Node.decl_end(), but that >>> >> relies on >>> >> + // decl_iterator just being a Decl**. >>> >> + unsigned DeclCount = 0; >>> >> + for (DeclStmt::const_decl_iterator I = Node.decl_begin(), >>> >> + E = Node.decl_end(); I != E; ++I) >>> >> + ++DeclCount; >>> >> >>> >> (after chatting with Chandler about this on irc): >>> >> I'd use Node.decl_end() - Node.decl_begin(). If it ever becomes a >>> >> non-const-time operation, the iterator will not implement the >>> >> interface and break compilation, so we'll notice. >>> > >>> > But do we need to notice? If the original algorithm written here is >>> > linear it seems like constant time size is not a requirement. >>> > >>> > If that's the case, then std::distance just DTRT - constant time for >>> >>> I personally am fine with arguing for std::distance. My point is not >>> to write the loop :) >>> >>> > random access iterators, linear for others. (alternatively, provide >>> > Node::decl_size that does the same thing - but I can understand the >>> > concern of providing a (possibly in the future) non-constant-time >>> > size, though at that point you could remove size & go back & examine >>> > each client to see which ones care about that) >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Regardless of that, I think your comment is wrong in 2 ways: first, >>> >> there's a typo :) Second, that the iterator happens to come down do >>> >> being a pointer has nothing to do with its contract. It either >>> >> provides random access or not. >>> >> >>> >> +/// \brief Matches expressions that match InnerMatcher after implicit >>> >> casts are >>> >> +/// stripped off. >>> >> +AST_MATCHER_P(Expr, ignoreImplicitCasts, >>> >> + internal::Matcher<Expr>, InnerMatcher) { >>> >> + return InnerMatcher.matches(*Node.IgnoreImpCasts(), Finder, >>> >> Builder); >>> >> +} >>> >> >>> >> I think we should implement the equivalent based on ignoreParenImpCast >>> >> first, as that's what I've seen us needing much more often (we can >>> >> implement this one, too, of course ;) >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> /Manuel >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sam Panzer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> <div>Attached are three more small matcher patches. One fixes another >>> >>> rename typo (AnyOf --> anyOf) that was similar to the previous >>> >>> allOf patch. The second patch adds more inspection for >>> >>> declarationStatement matchers, making it easier to look at single >>> >>> declarations directly. The third patch adds expression matchers which >>> >>> call IgnoreXXXCasts() before applying their >>> >>> sub-matchers.</div><div><br></div>For future reference, should I >>> >>> continue splitting up these patches for >>> >>> review?<div><br></div><div>-Sam</div> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> cfe-commits mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
