On Apr 14, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 14, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 11, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> IntrusiveRefCntPtr<LangOptions>         LangOpts;
>>>>> IntrusiveRefCntPtr<DiagnosticsEngine>   Diagnostics;
>>>>> +  IntrusiveRefCntPtr<vfs::FileSystem>     VFS;
>>>>> IntrusiveRefCntPtr<FileManager>         FileMgr;
>>>>> IntrusiveRefCntPtr<SourceManager>       SourceMgr;
>>>>> 
>>>>> <…>
>>>>> 
>>>>>                   DiagnosticsEngine &Diag, LangOptions &LangOpts,
>>>>>                   SourceManager &SourceMgr, FileManager &FileMgr,
>>>>> +                    vfs::FileSystem &VFS,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why do we need to keep the VFS separately, isn’t it owned by the 
>>>>> FileManager ?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No, it is conceptually owned by the CompilerInstance.  The FileManager is 
>>>> a user (albeit the only user right now). I say conceptually owned, because 
>>>> it is a ref-counted object that doesn’t really have a single owner.
>>> 
>>> So taking into account that it is a ref-counted object with no single 
>>> owner, and FileManager already has reference to it (I think considering the 
>>> FileManager as one of its owners makes sense IMO), why do we need it as a 
>>> field in ASTUnit class and passing around as parameter when a FileManager 
>>> parameter is already there ?
>> 
>> Sure, I can drop the field.  I will change ASTUnit, but keep 
>> CompilerInstance the way it is for now, since you can reuse a VFS without 
>> reusing the FileManager, so it makes sense to have a separate field in that 
>> case.  Updated patch attached.
>> 
>> <astunit.patch>
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would it be better if a
>>>>>   IntrusiveRefCntPtr<vfs::FileSystem> FS;
>>>>> is part of FileSystemOptions ? And created at the time with get the 
>>>>> FileSystemOptions for the compiler invocation ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems it would simplify a bunch of code.
>>>> 
>>>> This would confuse the division of responsibilities between the compiler 
>>>> invocation (which owns the FileSystemOptions) and the compiler instance. I 
>>>> don’t think that the constructed VFS belongs in the compiler invocation.  
>>>> I’m also not sure we should be reading and parsing VFS files during 
>>>> command-line argument parsing.
>>> 
>>> Fair enough, but on a related note, doesn’t the “VFSOverlayFiles” belong to 
>>> the FileSystemOptions and not the HeaderSearchOptions ?
>> 
>> Yeah that makes sense.  I will move them in a separate patch, since it is 
>> not directly relevant to this change.
> 
> After you make this change how about changing:
> 
> -  AllocatedCXCodeCompleteResults(const FileSystemOptions& FileSystemOpts);
> +  AllocatedCXCodeCompleteResults(const FileSystemOptions& FileSystemOpts,
> +                                 vfs::FileSystem &VFS);
> 
> And have it accept only ‘FileSystemOptions’ which will then use it to create 
> a VFS object out of it ?

Do we actually want to create a new VFS object (including parsing the VFS 
files)?  It seems pointless when we already have one in ASTUnit’s file manager.
> 
> Also nitpicking, isn’t better to pass the VFS here by ref-pointer so that the 
> API is clear that it is accepts and retains a reference to it ? Otherwise 
> it’s unclear if the AllocatedCXCodeCompleteResults will outlive the 
> FileSystem you pass to it or not.

Sure, will do.

> 
> Otherwise LGTM!
> 
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ben
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Dmitri and Argyrios,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could one (or both) of you take a look at my changes to the ASTUnit to 
>>>>>> support the VFS? The VFS needs to be created for most/all of the 
>>>>>> FileManagers that get created, and I’m a bit worried by the sheer number 
>>>>>> of FileManager and SourceManager creations that I needed to plug up.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <astunit.patch>

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to