+richard & james, who might both have things to say about the semantics involved...
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Philip Craig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Philip Craig <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Philip Craig <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> RecursiveASTVisitor was traversing D->getTypeForDecl() for EnumDecl, >>>>> but shouldn't (same as for other TagDecl). It also wasn't traversing >>>>> the C++11 integer type. >>>> >>>> Don't we still visit the type as part of the typeloc traversal after your >>>> patch? >>> >>> We still visit a type, but it's a different type. Previously it >>> visited an EnumType (which is the type that is the result of this >>> declaration, not part of it), but now it visits whatever type has been >>> specified, if any (such as BuiltinType for int). Maybe I should have >>> split this into separate patches? >>> >>>> Perhaps add a negative test for what we don't want to visit any more? >>> >>> I can if you think it's a good idea. I didn't for two reasons. >>> - There's no end of things you could test for the absence of, is this >>> important enough? >> >> Yes, the potential for negative tests is unlimited. On the other hand, >> having regression tests is in my opinion very useful and valuable - if >> one person has made the error once, chances are, somebody else will >> introduce the same error again (I've seen that happen many times). >> >>> - Most of the other TypeDecl are already skipping this type, and have >>> comments to that effect, but no tests. Should they have tests too? >> >> Well, the RAV is definitely undertested. But I don't think the >> asymmetry is too bad here - suddenly having to write tests for >> everything costs a lot of effort, but introducing tests when fixing >> bugs / implementing new features will already give lots of pay-out at >> comparatively little effort. >> >>> The way I'd prefer to test this is to visit everything, compare that >>> against a whitelist of things we expected to visit, and fail the test >>> if anything unexpected was visited, rather than having a blacklist of >>> things not to visit. That seems like it will need a lot of test >>> framework changes though. >> >> I like tests that test very specific things. In my experience those >> tend to be easier to maintain over the long run. > > I'm going to split this patch into two. Here's the first patch, which > removes getTypeForDecl() traversal. I've removed it from > TemplateTypeParmDecl as well, and added tests for them. Once that is > okay I'll send the second patch, which adds EnumDecl integer type > traversal. > > Patch description: > TypeDecl::getTypeForDecl() is always the type being defined by the > declaration, so it isn't written in the source and shouldn't be > traversed by RecursiveASTVisitor. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
