From: Arthur Cohen <[email protected]>
And improve code factoring to reduce the complexity of the
check_for_privacy_violation function.
gcc/rust/ChangeLog:
* checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc
(PrivacyReporter::check_for_privacy_violation): Add new overload for
two namespaces.
(PrivacyReporter::visit): Call it.
(PrivacyReporter::check_violation_inner): New function.
* checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h: Declare it.
---
This change was merged into the gccrs repository and is posted here for
upstream visibility and potential drive-by review, as requested by GCC
release managers.
Each commit email contains a link to its details on github from where you can
find the Pull-Request and associated discussions.
Commit on github:
https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/commit/3c36a62710bbb3629bf7fa4f5db23cd126260c94
The commit has NOT been mentioned in any issue.
The commit has been mentioned in the following pull-request(s):
- https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/pull/4551
.../errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc | 57 +++++++++++++------
.../errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h | 7 +++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc
b/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc
index 5d3c50ae3..9e2238f79 100644
--- a/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc
+++ b/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.cc
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
// <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
#include "rust-privacy-reporter.h"
+#include "rust-hir-map.h"
#include "rust-rib.h"
#include "rust-session-manager.h"
#include "rust-hir-expr.h"
@@ -92,21 +93,10 @@ PrivacyReporter::go (HIR::Crate &crate)
}
}
-// FIXME: This function needs a lot of refactoring
void
-PrivacyReporter::check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId &use_id,
- const location_t locus,
- Resolver2_0::Namespace ns)
+PrivacyReporter::check_violation_inner (NodeId ref_node_id,
+ const location_t locus)
{
- NodeId ref_node_id;
-
- // FIXME: Assert here. For now, we return since this causes issues when
- // checking inferred types (#1260)
- if (auto id = resolver.lookup (use_id, ns))
- ref_node_id = *id;
- else
- return;
-
auto vis = mappings.lookup_visibility (ref_node_id);
// FIXME: Can we really return here if the item has no visibility?
@@ -157,6 +147,41 @@ PrivacyReporter::check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId
&use_id,
}
}
+void
+PrivacyReporter::check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId &use_id,
+ const location_t locus,
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace ns)
+{
+ NodeId ref_node_id;
+
+ // FIXME: Assert here. For now, we return since this causes issues when
+ // checking inferred types (#1260)
+ if (auto id = resolver.lookup (use_id, ns))
+ ref_node_id = *id;
+ else
+ return;
+
+ check_violation_inner (ref_node_id, locus);
+}
+
+void
+PrivacyReporter::check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId &use_id,
+ const location_t locus,
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace ns1,
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace ns2)
+{
+ NodeId ref_node_id;
+
+ // FIXME: Assert here. For now, we return since this causes issues when
+ // checking inferred types (#1260)
+ if (auto resolved = resolver.lookup (use_id, ns1, ns2))
+ ref_node_id = resolved->id;
+ else
+ return;
+
+ check_violation_inner (ref_node_id, locus);
+}
+
void
PrivacyReporter::check_base_type_privacy (Analysis::NodeMapping &node_mappings,
const TyTy::BaseType *ty,
@@ -298,9 +323,9 @@ PrivacyReporter::visit (HIR::TypePath &path)
void
PrivacyReporter::visit (HIR::QualifiedPathInExpression &path)
{
- check_for_privacy_violation (
- path.get_mappings ().get_nodeid (), path.get_locus (),
- Resolver2_0::Namespace::Types /* FIXME: Is that correct? */);
+ check_for_privacy_violation (path.get_mappings ().get_nodeid (),
+ path.get_locus (),
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace::Values);
}
void
diff --git a/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h
b/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h
index c735aa44a..07627b1d6 100644
--- a/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h
+++ b/gcc/rust/checks/errors/privacy/rust-privacy-reporter.h
@@ -57,10 +57,17 @@ private:
* @param use_id NodeId of the expression/statement referencing an item with
* a visibility
* @param locus Location of said expression/statement
+ * @param ns1, ns2 Namespaces in which to check for visibility
*/
void check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId &use_id,
const location_t locus,
Resolver2_0::Namespace ns);
+ void check_for_privacy_violation (const NodeId &use_id,
+ const location_t locus,
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace ns1,
+ Resolver2_0::Namespace ns2);
+
+ void check_violation_inner (NodeId ref_node_id, const location_t inner);
/**
* Internal function used by `check_type_privacy` when dealing with complex
--
2.54.0
