TokenManager defines Token interfaces for the clang syntax-tree. This is the level
of abstraction that the syntax-tree should use to operate on Tokens.
It decouples the syntax-tree from a particular token implementation (TokenBuffer
previously). This enables us to use a different underlying token implementation
for the syntax Leaf node -- in clang pseudoparser, we want to produce a
syntax-tree with its own pseudo::Token rather than syntax::Token.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128411
OpaqueValueExpr doesn't correspond to the concrete syntax, it has
invalid source location, ignore them.
Reviewed By: kbobyrev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96112
The EndLoc of a type loc can be invalid for broken code.
Also extend the existing test to support error code with `error-ok`
annotation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96261
Rationale:
Children of a syntax tree had forward links only, because there was no
need for reverse links.
This need appeared when we started mutating the syntax tree.
On a forward list, to remove a target node in O(1) we need a pointer to the node before the target. If we don't have this "before" pointer, we have to find it, and that requires O(n).
So in order to remove a syntax node from a tree, we would similarly need to find the node before to then remove. This is both not ergonomic nor does it have a good complexity.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90240
The patch adjusts the existing `llvm::DenseMap<unsigned, T>` and
`llvm::DenseSet<unsigned>` objects that store source locations, so
that they use `SourceLocation` directly instead of `unsigned`.
This patch relies on the `DenseMapInfo` trait added in D89719.
It also replaces the construction of `SourceLocation` objects from
the constants -1 and -2 with calls to the trait's methods `getEmptyKey`
and `getTombstoneKey` where appropriate.
Reviewed By: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69840
After this change all nodes that have a delimited-list are using the
`List` API.
Implementation details:
Let's look at a declaration with multiple declarators:
`int a, b;`
To generate a declarator list node we need to have the range of
declarators: `a, b`:
However, the `ClangAST` actually stores them as separate declarations:
`int a ;`
`int b;`
We solve that by appropriately marking the declarators on each separate
declaration in the `ClangAST` and then for the final declarator `int
b`, shrinking its range to fit to the already marked declarators.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88403
Building on Mac OS with clang 12:
```
jhemphill@jhemphill-mbp build % clang --version
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.26.2)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
```
yields one warning:
```
/Users/jhemphill/oss/llvm-project/clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:1126:22: warning: loop variable 'Arg' is always a copy because the range of type 'llvm::iterator_range<clang::Stmt::CastIterator<clang::Expr, clang::Expr *, clang::Stmt *> >' does not return a reference [-Wrange-loop-analysis]
for (const auto &Arg : Args) {
^
/Users/jhemphill/oss/llvm-project/clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp:1126:10: note: use non-reference type 'clang::Expr *'
for (const auto &Arg : Args) {
```
It appears that `Arg` is an `Expr*`, passed by value rather than by const reference.
Reviewed By: eduucaldas, gribozavr2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87482
* Do not visit `CXXDefaultArgExpr`
* To build `CallArguments` nodes, just go through non-default arguments
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87249
Previously a NodeRole would generally be prefixed with the `NodeKind`,
we remove this prefix, as it we redundant and made tests more noisy.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86636
* Generate `CallExpression` syntax node for all semantic nodes inheriting from
`CallExpr` with call-expression syntax - except `CUDAKernelCallExpr`.
* Implement all the accessors
* Arguments of `CallExpression` have their own syntax node which is based on
the `List` base API
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86544
We should see `NodeRole` information in the dump because that exposes how the
accessors will behave.
Functional changes in the dump:
* Surround Leaf tokens with `'`
* Append `Node` dumps with `NodeRole` information, except for unknown roles
* Append marks to `Node` dumps, instead of prepending
Non-functional changes:
* `::dumpTokens(llvm::raw_ostream, ArrayRef<syntax::Token>, const
SourceManager &SM)` always received as parameter a `syntax::Token *`
pointing to `Leaf::token()`. Changed the function to
`dumpLeaf(llvm::raw_ostream, syntax::Leaf *, const SourceManager&)`
* `dumpTree` acted on a Node, rename to `dumpNode`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85330
For an user define `<`, `x < y` would yield the syntax tree:
```
BinaryOperatorExpression
|-IdExpression
| `-UnqualifiedId
| `-x
|-IdExpression
| `-UnqualifiedId
| `-<
`-IdExpression
`-UnqualifiedId
`-y
```
But there is no syntatic difference at call site between call site or
built-in `<`. As such they should generate the same syntax tree, namely:
```
BinaryOperatorExpression
|-IdExpression
| `-UnqualifiedId
| `-x
|-<
`-IdExpression
`-UnqualifiedId
`-y
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85750
Summary:
We want NestedNameSpecifier syntax nodes to be generally supported, not
only for `DeclRefExpr` and `DependentScopedDeclRefExpr`.
To achieve this we:
* Use the `RecursiveASTVisitor`'s API to traverse
`NestedNameSpecifierLoc`s and automatically create its syntax nodes
* Add links from the `NestedNameSpecifierLoc`s to their syntax nodes.
In this way, from any semantic construct that has a `NestedNameSpecifier`,
we implicitly generate its syntax node via RAV and we can easily access
this syntax node via the links we added.
This is our grammar rule for nested-name-specifiers:
globalbal-specifier:
/*empty*/
simple-template-specifier:
template_opt simple-template-id
name-specifier:
global-specifier
decltype-specifier
identifier
simple-template-specifier
nested-name-specifier:
list(name-specifier, ::, non-empty, terminated)
It is a relaxed version of C++ [expr.prim.id] and quite simpler to map to our API.
TODO: refine name specifiers, `simple-template-name-specifier` and
decltype-name-specifier` are token soup for now.
* as we are using them only for integer and floating literals they have
the same behavior
* FileRange::text is simpler to call and is within the context of
syntax trees
Summary:
Given an UserDefinedLiteral `1.2_w`:
Problem: Lexer generates one Token for the literal, but ClangAST
references two source locations
Fix: Ignore the operator and interpret it as the underlying literal.
e.g.: `1.2_w` token generates syntax node IntegerLiteral(1.2_w)
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82157
Summary:
How does RecursiveASTVisitor call the WalkUp callback for expressions?
* In pre-order traversal mode, RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp
callback from the default implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* In post-order traversal mode when we don't have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor also calls the WalkUp callback from the default
implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* However, in post-order traversal mode when we have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp callback from PostVisitStmt.
As a result, when the user overrides the Traverse callback, in pre-order
traversal mode they never get the corresponding WalkUp callback. However
in the post-order traversal mode the WalkUp callback is invoked or not
depending on whether the data recursion optimization could be applied.
I had to adjust the implementation of TraverseCXXForRangeStmt in the
syntax tree builder to call the WalkUp method directly, as it was
relying on this behavior. There is an existing test for this
functionality and it prompted me to make this extra fix.
In addition, I had to fix the default implementation implementation of
RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr to call WalkUpFrom in
the same manner as the implementation generated by the DEF_TRAVERSE_STMT
macro. Without this fix, the InitListExprIsPostOrderNoQueueVisitedTwice
test was failing because WalkUpFromInitListExpr was never called.
Reviewers: eduucaldas, ymandel
Reviewed By: eduucaldas, ymandel
Subscribers: gribozavr2, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82486
This reverts commit 8bf4c40af8.
This reverts commit 7b0be962d6.
This reverts commit 94454442c3.
Some compilers on some buildbots didn't accept the specialization of
is_same_method_impl in a non-namespace scope.
Summary:
How does RecursiveASTVisitor call the WalkUp callback for expressions?
* In pre-order traversal mode, RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp
callback from the default implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* In post-order traversal mode when we don't have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor also calls the WalkUp callback from the default
implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* However, in post-order traversal mode when we have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp callback from PostVisitStmt.
As a result, when the user overrides the Traverse callback, in pre-order
traversal mode they never get the corresponding WalkUp callback. However
in the post-order traversal mode the WalkUp callback is invoked or not
depending on whether the data recursion optimization could be applied.
I had to adjust the implementation of TraverseCXXForRangeStmt in the
syntax tree builder to call the WalkUp method directly, as it was
relying on this behavior. There is an existing test for this
functionality and it prompted me to make this extra fix.
In addition, I had to fix the default implementation implementation of
RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr to call WalkUpFrom in
the same manner as the implementation generated by the DEF_TRAVERSE_STMT
macro. Without this fix, the InitListExprIsPostOrderNoQueueVisitedTwice
test was failing because WalkUpFromInitListExpr was never called.
Reviewers: eduucaldas, ymandel
Reviewed By: eduucaldas, ymandel
Subscribers: gribozavr2, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82486
Haojian Wu