ah yes. The lookup failure. I forgot that one instance. Attached patches pass tests on r178827.
2013/4/4 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > > On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Loïc Jaquemet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > 2013/4/1 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > >> >> + /** >> + * \brief One field in the record is an incomplete Type. >> + */ >> + CXTypeLayoutError_IncompleteFieldParent = -6, >> + /** >> + * \brief One field in the record is a dependent Type. >> + */ >> + CXTypeLayoutError_DependentFieldParent = -7 >> +}; >> >> This was a bit confusing until I read >> >> + * If in the record there is another field's type declaration that is >> + * an incomplete type, CXTypeLayoutError_IncompleteFieldParent is >> returned. >> + * If in the record there is another field's type declaration that is >> + * a dependent type, CXTypeLayoutError_DependentFieldParent is >> returned. >> + */ >> >> Could we change it to a simpler, "the parent record is >> incomplete/dependent" ? >> >> > Given the radical code change, these confusing errors do not exists any > more. > > > >> >> +/** >> + * \brief Returns 1 if the cursor specifies a Record member that is a >> bitfield. >> + */ >> +CINDEX_LINKAGE unsigned clang_Cursor_isBitField(CXCursor C); >> >> the convention that we use is "Returns non-zero if ..." >> >> > done > > > >> >> +static long long visitRecordForNamedField(const RecordDecl *RD, >> + StringRef FieldName) { >> + for (RecordDecl::field_iterator I = RD->field_begin(), E = >> RD->field_end(); >> + I != E; ++I) { >> > [..] > >> + return visitRecordForNamedField(RD, FieldName); >> +} >> >> I think there is a simpler and more efficient way to handle fields in >> anonymous records, something like this: >> Inside clang_Type_getOffsetOf(): >> >> CXTranslationUnit TU = >> static_cast<CXTranslationUnit>(const_cast<void*>(PT.data[1])); >> ASTContext &Ctx = cxtu::getASTUnit(TU)->getASTContext(); >> IdentifierInfo *II = &Ctx.Idents.get(S); >> DeclarationName FieldName(II); >> RecordDecl::lookup_const_result Res = RD->lookup(FieldName); >> if (Res.size() != 1) >> return CXTypeLayoutError_InvalidFieldName; >> if (const FieldDecl *FD = dyn_cast<FieldDecl>(Res.front())) >> return getOffsetOfFieldDecl(FD); >> if (const IndirectFieldDecl *IFD = >> dyn_cast<IndirectFieldDecl>(Res.front())) >> return Ctx.getFieldOffset(IFD); // Change getOffsetOfFieldDecl() to >> accept IFD. >> >> return CXTypeLayoutError_InvalidFieldName; >> >> > Thanks! That was exactly was I was looking for. > > > In the process of implementing that new code, I stumble on some new crash > tests cases. > The RecordLayoutBuilder forces me to do a full validation of all records > fields in a record. > I have implemented a recursive validation function to do that. > At the end, it does simplify the testing quite a lot. > I do have to forget about the two previously confusing error types, as > they would not be distinguishable. > > So, basically, this code is now simpler and more robust. > I added some tests cases in the Incomplete namespace to demonstrate the > several issues I uncovered. > > > >> >> >> I also removed the duplicate clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf(). >> After consideration, it did not make sense, especially in the >> anonymous record situation. >> >> >> Not sure about this, clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf is arguable more useful >> than clang_Type_getOffsetOf. >> Let's say you have this use-case: "visit all fields in a record and get >> their offsets". To do this (as your changes in c-index-test show) you need >> to use this roundabout way where, you have the field, then you get its >> name, and pass it to clang_Type_getOffsetOf which looks for the same field. >> Can't clang_Cursor_getOffsetOf just work, for example if you have a >> cursor for "foo" in >> >> struct S { >> struct { >> int foo; >> }; >> }; >> >> it should just return the offset of "foo" inside "struct S". >> > > That was also my feeling at the beginning. > But after several iteration on my own code, I see that my own use of this > function is always in a context were I do have the record's type and the > field's name at hand. > On top of that, the C++ standard calls for a Type signature. > So I will keep it to that. > > > Please see attached diffs. > > > test/Index/print-type-size.cpp failed when I applied the diffs on top of > r178800, could you take a look ? > > > * Implementation of sizeof, alignof and offsetof for libclang. > * Unit Tests > * Python bindings > * Python tests > > -- > Loïc Jaquemet > <sizeof-alignof-offsetof-001><sizeof-alignof-offsetof-002-tests> > <sizeof-alignof-offsetof-003-python-bindings> > <sizeof-alignof-offsetof-004-python-bindings-tests> > > > -- Loïc Jaquemet
expose-ast-record-layout-001
Description: Binary data
expose-ast-record-layout-002-tests
Description: Binary data
expose-ast-record-layout-003-python-bindings
Description: Binary data
expose-ast-record-layout-004-python-bindings-tests
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
