Latest version attached! On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"? > > How about "containsDeclaration" for the latter case? Since it's intended for use in a DeclStmt, it makes sense to talk about the declarations contained within the statement - and I think it would be difficult to find a better name for the original "hasDeclaration." > > > > > > 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 > >> > >> > > >
decl-matcher.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
