Summary:
This feature was only used in two places, but contributed a non-trivial
amount to the complexity of RecursiveASTVisitor, and was buggy (see my
recent patches where I was fixing the bugs that I noticed). I don't
think the convenience benefit of this feature is worth the complexity.
Besides complexity, another issue with the current state of
RecursiveASTVisitor is the non-uniformity in how it handles different
AST nodes. All AST nodes follow a regular pattern, but operators are
special -- and this special behavior not documented. Correct usage of
RecursiveASTVisitor relies on shadowing member functions with specific
names and signatures. Near misses don't cause any compile-time errors,
incorrectly named or typed methods are just silently ignored. Therefore,
predictability of RecursiveASTVisitor API is quite important.
This change reduces the size of the `clang` binary by 38 KB (0.2%) in
release mode, and by 7 MB (0.3%) in debug mode. The `clang-tidy` binary
is reduced by 205 KB (0.3%) in release mode, and by 5 MB (0.4%) in debug
mode. I don't think these code size improvements are significant enough
to justify this change on its own (for me, the primary motivation is
reducing code complexity), but they I think are a nice side-effect.
Reviewers: rsmith, sammccall, ymandel, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rsmith, sammccall, ymandel, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82921
Summary:
How does RecursiveASTVisitor call the WalkUp callback for expressions?
* In pre-order traversal mode, RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp
callback from the default implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* In post-order traversal mode when we don't have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor also calls the WalkUp callback from the default
implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* However, in post-order traversal mode when we have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp callback from PostVisitStmt.
As a result, when the user overrides the Traverse callback, in pre-order
traversal mode they never get the corresponding WalkUp callback. However
in the post-order traversal mode the WalkUp callback is invoked or not
depending on whether the data recursion optimization could be applied.
I had to adjust the implementation of TraverseCXXForRangeStmt in the
syntax tree builder to call the WalkUp method directly, as it was
relying on this behavior. There is an existing test for this
functionality and it prompted me to make this extra fix.
In addition, I had to fix the default implementation implementation of
RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr to call WalkUpFrom in
the same manner as the implementation generated by the DEF_TRAVERSE_STMT
macro. Without this fix, the InitListExprIsPostOrderNoQueueVisitedTwice
test was failing because WalkUpFromInitListExpr was never called.
Reviewers: eduucaldas, ymandel
Reviewed By: eduucaldas, ymandel
Subscribers: gribozavr2, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82486
This reverts commit 8bf4c40af8.
This reverts commit 7b0be962d6.
This reverts commit 94454442c3.
Some compilers on some buildbots didn't accept the specialization of
is_same_method_impl in a non-namespace scope.
Summary:
How does RecursiveASTVisitor call the WalkUp callback for expressions?
* In pre-order traversal mode, RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp
callback from the default implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* In post-order traversal mode when we don't have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor also calls the WalkUp callback from the default
implementation of Traverse callbacks.
* However, in post-order traversal mode when we have a DataRecursionQueue,
RecursiveASTVisitor calls the WalkUp callback from PostVisitStmt.
As a result, when the user overrides the Traverse callback, in pre-order
traversal mode they never get the corresponding WalkUp callback. However
in the post-order traversal mode the WalkUp callback is invoked or not
depending on whether the data recursion optimization could be applied.
I had to adjust the implementation of TraverseCXXForRangeStmt in the
syntax tree builder to call the WalkUp method directly, as it was
relying on this behavior. There is an existing test for this
functionality and it prompted me to make this extra fix.
In addition, I had to fix the default implementation implementation of
RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseSynOrSemInitListExpr to call WalkUpFrom in
the same manner as the implementation generated by the DEF_TRAVERSE_STMT
macro. Without this fix, the InitListExprIsPostOrderNoQueueVisitedTwice
test was failing because WalkUpFromInitListExpr was never called.
Reviewers: eduucaldas, ymandel
Reviewed By: eduucaldas, ymandel
Subscribers: gribozavr2, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82486
Summary:
RecursiveASTVisitor has special code for handling operator AST nodes,
specifically, unary, binary, and compound assignment operators. In this
change I'm adding tests for operator AST nodes that follow the existing
pattern of tests for the CallExpr node (an AST node that triggers the
common code path).
Reviewers: ymandel, eduucaldas
Reviewed By: ymandel, eduucaldas
Subscribers: gribozavr2, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82875
Summary:
These tests show a bug: post-order traversal introduces an extra call to
WalkUp*, that is not present in pre-order traversal. I'm fixing this bug
in a follow-up commit.
Reviewers: ymandel, eduucaldas
Reviewed By: ymandel, eduucaldas
Subscribers: gribozavr2, mgorny, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82485
Summary:
Make RAV not visit the default function decl by default.
Also update some stale comments on FunctionDecl::isDefault.
Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/383
Reviewers: sammccall, rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80288
This reverts commit 7f93cb6228.
The assertion at RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1169 fails when passed a TypeLocNode.
Not sure if the correct fix is to use getTypeLocClass or something else.
Summary:
Clang generates function bodies and puts them in the AST for default methods if it is defaulted outside the class definition.
`
struct A {
A &operator=(A &&O);
};
A &A::operator=(A &&O) = default;
`
This will generate a function body for the `A &A::operator=(A &&O)` and put it in the AST. This body should not be visited if implicit code is not visited as it is implicit.
This was causing SemanticHighlighting in clangd to generate duplicate tokens and putting them in weird places.
Reviewers: hokein, ilya-biryukov, gribozavr
Subscribers: mgorny, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65938
llvm-svn: 368402
Some compiler, notably older gccs (< 8) can have trouble with multiline raw
string literals inside macros. This just moves the code outsize the macro, to
attempt to appease the bots.
llvm-svn: 367885
Summary: RecursiveASTVisitor was visiting implcit constructor initializers. This caused semantic highlighting in clangd to emit error logs. Fixes this by checking if the constructor is written or if the visitor should visit implicit decls.
Reviewers: hokein, ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65735
llvm-svn: 367839
Summary:
In particular, do not traverse the semantic form if shouldVisitImplicitCode()
returns false.
This simplifies the common case of traversals, avoiding the need to
worry about some expressions being traversed twice.
No tests break after the change, the change would allow to simplify at
least one of the usages, i.e. r366070 which had to handle this in
clangd.
Reviewers: gribozavr
Reviewed By: gribozavr
Subscribers: kadircet, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64762
llvm-svn: 366672
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary:
Prior to r351069, lambda classes were traversed or not depending on the
{Function, Class, Namespace, TU} DeclContext containing them.
If it was a function (common case) they were not traversed.
If it was a namespace or TU (top-level lambda) they were traversed as part of
that DeclContext traversal.
r351069 "fixed" RAV to traverse these as part of the LambdaExpr, which is the
right place. But top-level lambdas are now traversed twice.
We fix that as blocks and block captures were apparently fixed in the past.
Maybe it would be nicer to avoid adding the lambda classes to the DeclContext
in the first place, but I can't work out the implications of that.
Reviewers: bkramer, klimek
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56665
llvm-svn: 351075
Summary:
This fixes ASTContext's parent map for nodes in such classes (e.g. operator()).
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39949
This also changes the observed shape of the AST for implicit RAVs.
- this includes AST MatchFinder: cxxRecordDecl() now matches lambda classes,
functionDecl() matches the call operator, and the parent chain is body -> call
operator -> lambda class -> lambdaexpr rather than body -> lambdaexpr.
- this appears not to matter for the ASTImporterLookupTable builder
- this doesn't matter for the other RAVs in-tree.
In order to do this, we remove the TraverseLambdaBody hook. The problem is it's
hard/weird to ensure this hook is called when traversing via the implicit class.
There were just two users of this hook in-tree, who use it to skip bodies.
I replaced these with explicitly traversing the captures only. Another approach
would be recording the bodies when the lambda is visited, and then recognizing
them later.
I'd be open to suggestion on how to preserve this hook, instead.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, JonasToth
Subscribers: cfe-commits, rsmith, jdennett
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444
llvm-svn: 351047
Summary:
The goal is to allow analyses such as clang-tidy checks to run on a
subset of the AST, e.g. "only on main-file decls" for interactive tools.
Today, these become "problematically global" by running RecursiveASTVisitors
rooted at the TUDecl, or by navigating up via ASTContext::getParent().
The scope is restricted using a set of top-level-decls that RecursiveASTVisitors
should be rooted at. This also applies to the visitor that populates the
parent map, and so the top-level-decls are considered to have no parents.
This patch makes the traversal scope a mutable property of ASTContext.
The more obvious way to do this is to pass the top-level decls to
relevant functions directly, but this has some problems:
- it's error-prone: accidentally mixing restricted and unrestricted
scopes is a performance trap. Interleaving multiple analyses is
common (many clang-tidy checks run matchers or RAVs from matcher callbacks)
- it doesn't map well to the actual use cases, where we really do want
*all* traversals to be restricted.
- it involves a lot of plumbing in parts of the code that don't care
about traversals.
This approach was tried out in D54259 and D54261, I wanted to like it
but it feels pretty awful in practice.
Caveats: to get scope-limiting behavior of RecursiveASTVisitors, callers
have to call the new TraverseAST(Ctx) function instead of TraverseDecl(TU).
I think this is an improvement to the API regardless.
Reviewers: klimek, ioeric
Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54309
llvm-svn: 346847
A lambda's closure is initialized when the lambda is declared. For
implicit captures, the initialization code emitted from EmitLambdaExpr
references source locations *within the lambda body* in the function
containing the lambda. This results in a poor debugging experience: we
step to the line containing the lambda, then into lambda, out again,
over and over, until every capture's field is initialized.
To improve stepping behavior, assign the starting location of the lambda
to expressions which initialize an implicit capture within it.
rdar://39807527
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50927
llvm-svn: 342194
RecursiveASTVisitorTest.cpp is one of the longest compile jobs and a
build bottleneck on many-core machines. This patch breaks that file and
some peer files up into smaller files to increase build concurrency and
overall rebuild performance.
llvm-svn: 330353
Nathan Ridge