Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Re: Parsing code under inactive #if or #ifdef

Clearly you can create lot's of examples where a straight forward
approach would work. However, parsing the inactive branches also affects
the active branches and can lead to parser errors for code that would
otherwise be correctly parsed. So one of the difficult parts is to find
a model that guarantees that we correctly handle the active sections,
while providing additional (maybe less accurate) information about the
inactive branches. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dmitry Smirnov
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:03 AM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cdt-dev] Re: Parsing code under inactive #if or #ifdef
> Importance: Low
> Thanks everybody for this dicussion. At least, I know that 
> I'm not alone who wants this feature :-) I also agree with 
> 3rd aprroach (maybe with some small difference).
> Chris,
> I've seen that IBM is commited to start this task after 
> Ganymede? Is it still valid?
> Well, I beg you pardon me for the thoughts below since I'm 
> new for this AST/DOM world and absolutely not a 
> compiler/parser expert. So, probaly, I just can't see 
> underwater rocks. Nevertheless, let me share those ideas.
> I feel (yes, just feel, with no proves yet), that everything 
> a litle bit complicated.
> Let's take a look at some simple case:
>   void foo(int a, void * b, char c);
> #else
>   void foo(int a, char b);
> #endif
> I suppose current implementation should be enough for such a case.
> Parser should just create 2 different declarations. Am I wrong?
> Here is more complex example:
> void foo(int a,
>    void * b,
> #endif
> char c);
> >From the end-user perspective there still 2 declarations. So, let's
> just generate them. It may be a problem with current implementation.
> But I suppose we just need some small modifications in parser 
> and preprocessor.
> It seems that having those conditional directives creates a 
> binary tree for each of them (empty or absent #else is also a 
> path). How can we parse it?
> On my mind it would be great to have some kind of "unwinding" for a
> lexer/preprocessor: when it encounters a conditional 
> directive, it stores current context (defined macro, etc.) 
> and continues to positive branch. At the end of it, it 
> restores the context (thus deleting new defined macro). 
> Parser should be able to detect that context restoration and 
> trigger new parsing procedure on negative branch starting 
> from the same place. Thus it will create a new declaration or 
> definition.
> I have to say few words about "same place". On my mind, this 
> should be some kind of the beginning of nearest previous 
> declaration (in terms of GNUCSourceParser.translationUnit() ).
> So the algorithm will be:
>   1) get new declaration.
>   2) if parser has encountered a branch and there still not 
> parsed branches inside it, get new declaration again
> void foo(int a,
>    void * b,
>    float d,
> #endif
> #endif
> char c);
> For this example, parser
>   1) creates a declaration of foo for all positive branches. 
> They are marked by preprocessor as parsed
>   2) creates a declaration of foo for innermost negative and 
> others positive branches
>   3) creates a declaration of foo for all negative branches
> I even do not see any need to significally modify the AST structures.
> The conditionals that affect the AST node can be figured out 
> even later. Namely, all the OVERLAPPING directives are 
> affecting the declaration/definition. Thus, if you have 
> offset and length of the node, you can find all the 
> directives that overlaps it.
> Dmitry
> 2008/9/11 Dmitry Smirnov <divis1969@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to use AST/PDOM for parsing a project in goal to build 
> > browsable view of the code (outside of Eclipse, some set of WEB 
> > pages).
> >
> > For this purpose I would like to have inactive code to be 
> parsed too.
> > As I can see, now this is prevented by CPreprocessor class. Method
> > executeIfdef() and other similar methods call 
> > skipOverConditionalCode().
> >
> > I would like to propose some enchancement for this. I believe some 
> > scanner options could be added that changes default 
> behaviour. If this 
> > option is active, CPreprocessor will not call
> > skipOverConditionalCode() thus making parser to handle all the code.
> >
> > I suppose, some methods should also be changed (like values 
> of macro 
> > defined inside active/inactive branches).
> >
> > What do you think about such feature? Perhaps, CDT already 
> have some 
> > plans for similar enchancement?
> >
> > I'm going to test this approach with CDT 5.0. If you have some 
> > thoughts that could help me with it, please let me know.
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top