1*67e74705SXin Li============================ 2*67e74705SXin Li"Clang" CFE Internals Manual 3*67e74705SXin Li============================ 4*67e74705SXin Li 5*67e74705SXin Li.. contents:: 6*67e74705SXin Li :local: 7*67e74705SXin Li 8*67e74705SXin LiIntroduction 9*67e74705SXin Li============ 10*67e74705SXin Li 11*67e74705SXin LiThis document describes some of the more important APIs and internal design 12*67e74705SXin Lidecisions made in the Clang C front-end. The purpose of this document is to 13*67e74705SXin Liboth capture some of this high level information and also describe some of the 14*67e74705SXin Lidesign decisions behind it. This is meant for people interested in hacking on 15*67e74705SXin LiClang, not for end-users. The description below is categorized by libraries, 16*67e74705SXin Liand does not describe any of the clients of the libraries. 17*67e74705SXin Li 18*67e74705SXin LiLLVM Support Library 19*67e74705SXin Li==================== 20*67e74705SXin Li 21*67e74705SXin LiThe LLVM ``libSupport`` library provides many underlying libraries and 22*67e74705SXin Li`data-structures <http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html>`_, including 23*67e74705SXin Licommand line option processing, various containers and a system abstraction 24*67e74705SXin Lilayer, which is used for file system access. 25*67e74705SXin Li 26*67e74705SXin LiThe Clang "Basic" Library 27*67e74705SXin Li========================= 28*67e74705SXin Li 29*67e74705SXin LiThis library certainly needs a better name. The "basic" library contains a 30*67e74705SXin Linumber of low-level utilities for tracking and manipulating source buffers, 31*67e74705SXin Lilocations within the source buffers, diagnostics, tokens, target abstraction, 32*67e74705SXin Liand information about the subset of the language being compiled for. 33*67e74705SXin Li 34*67e74705SXin LiPart of this infrastructure is specific to C (such as the ``TargetInfo`` 35*67e74705SXin Liclass), other parts could be reused for other non-C-based languages 36*67e74705SXin Li(``SourceLocation``, ``SourceManager``, ``Diagnostics``, ``FileManager``). 37*67e74705SXin LiWhen and if there is future demand we can figure out if it makes sense to 38*67e74705SXin Liintroduce a new library, move the general classes somewhere else, or introduce 39*67e74705SXin Lisome other solution. 40*67e74705SXin Li 41*67e74705SXin LiWe describe the roles of these classes in order of their dependencies. 42*67e74705SXin Li 43*67e74705SXin LiThe Diagnostics Subsystem 44*67e74705SXin Li------------------------- 45*67e74705SXin Li 46*67e74705SXin LiThe Clang Diagnostics subsystem is an important part of how the compiler 47*67e74705SXin Licommunicates with the human. Diagnostics are the warnings and errors produced 48*67e74705SXin Liwhen the code is incorrect or dubious. In Clang, each diagnostic produced has 49*67e74705SXin Li(at the minimum) a unique ID, an English translation associated with it, a 50*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`SourceLocation <SourceLocation>` to "put the caret", and a severity 51*67e74705SXin Li(e.g., ``WARNING`` or ``ERROR``). They can also optionally include a number of 52*67e74705SXin Liarguments to the dianostic (which fill in "%0"'s in the string) as well as a 53*67e74705SXin Linumber of source ranges that related to the diagnostic. 54*67e74705SXin Li 55*67e74705SXin LiIn this section, we'll be giving examples produced by the Clang command line 56*67e74705SXin Lidriver, but diagnostics can be :ref:`rendered in many different ways 57*67e74705SXin Li<DiagnosticClient>` depending on how the ``DiagnosticClient`` interface is 58*67e74705SXin Liimplemented. A representative example of a diagnostic is: 59*67e74705SXin Li 60*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: text 61*67e74705SXin Li 62*67e74705SXin Li t.c:38:15: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('int *' and '_Complex float') 63*67e74705SXin Li P = (P-42) + Gamma*4; 64*67e74705SXin Li ~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~ 65*67e74705SXin Li 66*67e74705SXin LiIn this example, you can see the English translation, the severity (error), you 67*67e74705SXin Lican see the source location (the caret ("``^``") and file/line/column info), 68*67e74705SXin Lithe source ranges "``~~~~``", arguments to the diagnostic ("``int*``" and 69*67e74705SXin Li"``_Complex float``"). You'll have to believe me that there is a unique ID 70*67e74705SXin Libacking the diagnostic :). 71*67e74705SXin Li 72*67e74705SXin LiGetting all of this to happen has several steps and involves many moving 73*67e74705SXin Lipieces, this section describes them and talks about best practices when adding 74*67e74705SXin Lia new diagnostic. 75*67e74705SXin Li 76*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Diagnostic*Kinds.td`` files 77*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 78*67e74705SXin Li 79*67e74705SXin LiDiagnostics are created by adding an entry to one of the 80*67e74705SXin Li``clang/Basic/Diagnostic*Kinds.td`` files, depending on what library will be 81*67e74705SXin Liusing it. From this file, :program:`tblgen` generates the unique ID of the 82*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostic, the severity of the diagnostic and the English translation + format 83*67e74705SXin Listring. 84*67e74705SXin Li 85*67e74705SXin LiThere is little sanity with the naming of the unique ID's right now. Some 86*67e74705SXin Listart with ``err_``, ``warn_``, ``ext_`` to encode the severity into the name. 87*67e74705SXin LiSince the enum is referenced in the C++ code that produces the diagnostic, it 88*67e74705SXin Liis somewhat useful for it to be reasonably short. 89*67e74705SXin Li 90*67e74705SXin LiThe severity of the diagnostic comes from the set {``NOTE``, ``REMARK``, 91*67e74705SXin Li``WARNING``, 92*67e74705SXin Li``EXTENSION``, ``EXTWARN``, ``ERROR``}. The ``ERROR`` severity is used for 93*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostics indicating the program is never acceptable under any circumstances. 94*67e74705SXin LiWhen an error is emitted, the AST for the input code may not be fully built. 95*67e74705SXin LiThe ``EXTENSION`` and ``EXTWARN`` severities are used for extensions to the 96*67e74705SXin Lilanguage that Clang accepts. This means that Clang fully understands and can 97*67e74705SXin Lirepresent them in the AST, but we produce diagnostics to tell the user their 98*67e74705SXin Licode is non-portable. The difference is that the former are ignored by 99*67e74705SXin Lidefault, and the later warn by default. The ``WARNING`` severity is used for 100*67e74705SXin Liconstructs that are valid in the currently selected source language but that 101*67e74705SXin Liare dubious in some way. The ``REMARK`` severity provides generic information 102*67e74705SXin Liabout the compilation that is not necessarily related to any dubious code. The 103*67e74705SXin Li``NOTE`` level is used to staple more information onto previous diagnostics. 104*67e74705SXin Li 105*67e74705SXin LiThese *severities* are mapped into a smaller set (the ``Diagnostic::Level`` 106*67e74705SXin Lienum, {``Ignored``, ``Note``, ``Remark``, ``Warning``, ``Error``, ``Fatal``}) of 107*67e74705SXin Lioutput 108*67e74705SXin Li*levels* by the diagnostics subsystem based on various configuration options. 109*67e74705SXin LiClang internally supports a fully fine grained mapping mechanism that allows 110*67e74705SXin Liyou to map almost any diagnostic to the output level that you want. The only 111*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostics that cannot be mapped are ``NOTE``\ s, which always follow the 112*67e74705SXin Liseverity of the previously emitted diagnostic and ``ERROR``\ s, which can only 113*67e74705SXin Libe mapped to ``Fatal`` (it is not possible to turn an error into a warning, for 114*67e74705SXin Liexample). 115*67e74705SXin Li 116*67e74705SXin LiDiagnostic mappings are used in many ways. For example, if the user specifies 117*67e74705SXin Li``-pedantic``, ``EXTENSION`` maps to ``Warning``, if they specify 118*67e74705SXin Li``-pedantic-errors``, it turns into ``Error``. This is used to implement 119*67e74705SXin Lioptions like ``-Wunused_macros``, ``-Wundef`` etc. 120*67e74705SXin Li 121*67e74705SXin LiMapping to ``Fatal`` should only be used for diagnostics that are considered so 122*67e74705SXin Lisevere that error recovery won't be able to recover sensibly from them (thus 123*67e74705SXin Lispewing a ton of bogus errors). One example of this class of error are failure 124*67e74705SXin Lito ``#include`` a file. 125*67e74705SXin Li 126*67e74705SXin LiThe Format String 127*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 128*67e74705SXin Li 129*67e74705SXin LiThe format string for the diagnostic is very simple, but it has some power. It 130*67e74705SXin Litakes the form of a string in English with markers that indicate where and how 131*67e74705SXin Liarguments to the diagnostic are inserted and formatted. For example, here are 132*67e74705SXin Lisome simple format strings: 133*67e74705SXin Li 134*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 135*67e74705SXin Li 136*67e74705SXin Li "binary integer literals are an extension" 137*67e74705SXin Li "format string contains '\\0' within the string body" 138*67e74705SXin Li "more '%%' conversions than data arguments" 139*67e74705SXin Li "invalid operands to binary expression (%0 and %1)" 140*67e74705SXin Li "overloaded '%0' must be a %select{unary|binary|unary or binary}2 operator" 141*67e74705SXin Li " (has %1 parameter%s1)" 142*67e74705SXin Li 143*67e74705SXin LiThese examples show some important points of format strings. You can use any 144*67e74705SXin Liplain ASCII character in the diagnostic string except "``%``" without a 145*67e74705SXin Liproblem, but these are C strings, so you have to use and be aware of all the C 146*67e74705SXin Liescape sequences (as in the second example). If you want to produce a "``%``" 147*67e74705SXin Liin the output, use the "``%%``" escape sequence, like the third diagnostic. 148*67e74705SXin LiFinally, Clang uses the "``%...[digit]``" sequences to specify where and how 149*67e74705SXin Liarguments to the diagnostic are formatted. 150*67e74705SXin Li 151*67e74705SXin LiArguments to the diagnostic are numbered according to how they are specified by 152*67e74705SXin Lithe C++ code that :ref:`produces them <internals-producing-diag>`, and are 153*67e74705SXin Lireferenced by ``%0`` .. ``%9``. If you have more than 10 arguments to your 154*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostic, you are doing something wrong :). Unlike ``printf``, there is no 155*67e74705SXin Lirequirement that arguments to the diagnostic end up in the output in the same 156*67e74705SXin Liorder as they are specified, you could have a format string with "``%1 %0``" 157*67e74705SXin Lithat swaps them, for example. The text in between the percent and digit are 158*67e74705SXin Liformatting instructions. If there are no instructions, the argument is just 159*67e74705SXin Liturned into a string and substituted in. 160*67e74705SXin Li 161*67e74705SXin LiHere are some "best practices" for writing the English format string: 162*67e74705SXin Li 163*67e74705SXin Li* Keep the string short. It should ideally fit in the 80 column limit of the 164*67e74705SXin Li ``DiagnosticKinds.td`` file. This avoids the diagnostic wrapping when 165*67e74705SXin Li printed, and forces you to think about the important point you are conveying 166*67e74705SXin Li with the diagnostic. 167*67e74705SXin Li* Take advantage of location information. The user will be able to see the 168*67e74705SXin Li line and location of the caret, so you don't need to tell them that the 169*67e74705SXin Li problem is with the 4th argument to the function: just point to it. 170*67e74705SXin Li* Do not capitalize the diagnostic string, and do not end it with a period. 171*67e74705SXin Li* If you need to quote something in the diagnostic string, use single quotes. 172*67e74705SXin Li 173*67e74705SXin LiDiagnostics should never take random English strings as arguments: you 174*67e74705SXin Lishouldn't use "``you have a problem with %0``" and pass in things like "``your 175*67e74705SXin Liargument``" or "``your return value``" as arguments. Doing this prevents 176*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`translating <internals-diag-translation>` the Clang diagnostics to other 177*67e74705SXin Lilanguages (because they'll get random English words in their otherwise 178*67e74705SXin Lilocalized diagnostic). The exceptions to this are C/C++ language keywords 179*67e74705SXin Li(e.g., ``auto``, ``const``, ``mutable``, etc) and C/C++ operators (``/=``). 180*67e74705SXin LiNote that things like "pointer" and "reference" are not keywords. On the other 181*67e74705SXin Lihand, you *can* include anything that comes from the user's source code, 182*67e74705SXin Liincluding variable names, types, labels, etc. The "``select``" format can be 183*67e74705SXin Liused to achieve this sort of thing in a localizable way, see below. 184*67e74705SXin Li 185*67e74705SXin LiFormatting a Diagnostic Argument 186*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 187*67e74705SXin Li 188*67e74705SXin LiArguments to diagnostics are fully typed internally, and come from a couple 189*67e74705SXin Lidifferent classes: integers, types, names, and random strings. Depending on 190*67e74705SXin Lithe class of the argument, it can be optionally formatted in different ways. 191*67e74705SXin LiThis gives the ``DiagnosticClient`` information about what the argument means 192*67e74705SXin Liwithout requiring it to use a specific presentation (consider this MVC for 193*67e74705SXin LiClang :). 194*67e74705SXin Li 195*67e74705SXin LiHere are the different diagnostic argument formats currently supported by 196*67e74705SXin LiClang: 197*67e74705SXin Li 198*67e74705SXin Li**"s" format** 199*67e74705SXin Li 200*67e74705SXin LiExample: 201*67e74705SXin Li ``"requires %1 parameter%s1"`` 202*67e74705SXin LiClass: 203*67e74705SXin Li Integers 204*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 205*67e74705SXin Li This is a simple formatter for integers that is useful when producing English 206*67e74705SXin Li diagnostics. When the integer is 1, it prints as nothing. When the integer 207*67e74705SXin Li is not 1, it prints as "``s``". This allows some simple grammatical forms to 208*67e74705SXin Li be to be handled correctly, and eliminates the need to use gross things like 209*67e74705SXin Li ``"requires %1 parameter(s)"``. 210*67e74705SXin Li 211*67e74705SXin Li**"select" format** 212*67e74705SXin Li 213*67e74705SXin LiExample: 214*67e74705SXin Li ``"must be a %select{unary|binary|unary or binary}2 operator"`` 215*67e74705SXin LiClass: 216*67e74705SXin Li Integers 217*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 218*67e74705SXin Li This format specifier is used to merge multiple related diagnostics together 219*67e74705SXin Li into one common one, without requiring the difference to be specified as an 220*67e74705SXin Li English string argument. Instead of specifying the string, the diagnostic 221*67e74705SXin Li gets an integer argument and the format string selects the numbered option. 222*67e74705SXin Li In this case, the "``%2``" value must be an integer in the range [0..2]. If 223*67e74705SXin Li it is 0, it prints "unary", if it is 1 it prints "binary" if it is 2, it 224*67e74705SXin Li prints "unary or binary". This allows other language translations to 225*67e74705SXin Li substitute reasonable words (or entire phrases) based on the semantics of the 226*67e74705SXin Li diagnostic instead of having to do things textually. The selected string 227*67e74705SXin Li does undergo formatting. 228*67e74705SXin Li 229*67e74705SXin Li**"plural" format** 230*67e74705SXin Li 231*67e74705SXin LiExample: 232*67e74705SXin Li ``"you have %1 %plural{1:mouse|:mice}1 connected to your computer"`` 233*67e74705SXin LiClass: 234*67e74705SXin Li Integers 235*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 236*67e74705SXin Li This is a formatter for complex plural forms. It is designed to handle even 237*67e74705SXin Li the requirements of languages with very complex plural forms, as many Baltic 238*67e74705SXin Li languages have. The argument consists of a series of expression/form pairs, 239*67e74705SXin Li separated by ":", where the first form whose expression evaluates to true is 240*67e74705SXin Li the result of the modifier. 241*67e74705SXin Li 242*67e74705SXin Li An expression can be empty, in which case it is always true. See the example 243*67e74705SXin Li at the top. Otherwise, it is a series of one or more numeric conditions, 244*67e74705SXin Li separated by ",". If any condition matches, the expression matches. Each 245*67e74705SXin Li numeric condition can take one of three forms. 246*67e74705SXin Li 247*67e74705SXin Li * number: A simple decimal number matches if the argument is the same as the 248*67e74705SXin Li number. Example: ``"%plural{1:mouse|:mice}4"`` 249*67e74705SXin Li * range: A range in square brackets matches if the argument is within the 250*67e74705SXin Li range. Then range is inclusive on both ends. Example: 251*67e74705SXin Li ``"%plural{0:none|1:one|[2,5]:some|:many}2"`` 252*67e74705SXin Li * modulo: A modulo operator is followed by a number, and equals sign and 253*67e74705SXin Li either a number or a range. The tests are the same as for plain numbers 254*67e74705SXin Li and ranges, but the argument is taken modulo the number first. Example: 255*67e74705SXin Li ``"%plural{%100=0:even hundred|%100=[1,50]:lower half|:everything else}1"`` 256*67e74705SXin Li 257*67e74705SXin Li The parser is very unforgiving. A syntax error, even whitespace, will abort, 258*67e74705SXin Li as will a failure to match the argument against any expression. 259*67e74705SXin Li 260*67e74705SXin Li**"ordinal" format** 261*67e74705SXin Li 262*67e74705SXin LiExample: 263*67e74705SXin Li ``"ambiguity in %ordinal0 argument"`` 264*67e74705SXin LiClass: 265*67e74705SXin Li Integers 266*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 267*67e74705SXin Li This is a formatter which represents the argument number as an ordinal: the 268*67e74705SXin Li value ``1`` becomes ``1st``, ``3`` becomes ``3rd``, and so on. Values less 269*67e74705SXin Li than ``1`` are not supported. This formatter is currently hard-coded to use 270*67e74705SXin Li English ordinals. 271*67e74705SXin Li 272*67e74705SXin Li**"objcclass" format** 273*67e74705SXin Li 274*67e74705SXin LiExample: 275*67e74705SXin Li ``"method %objcclass0 not found"`` 276*67e74705SXin LiClass: 277*67e74705SXin Li ``DeclarationName`` 278*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 279*67e74705SXin Li This is a simple formatter that indicates the ``DeclarationName`` corresponds 280*67e74705SXin Li to an Objective-C class method selector. As such, it prints the selector 281*67e74705SXin Li with a leading "``+``". 282*67e74705SXin Li 283*67e74705SXin Li**"objcinstance" format** 284*67e74705SXin Li 285*67e74705SXin LiExample: 286*67e74705SXin Li ``"method %objcinstance0 not found"`` 287*67e74705SXin LiClass: 288*67e74705SXin Li ``DeclarationName`` 289*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 290*67e74705SXin Li This is a simple formatter that indicates the ``DeclarationName`` corresponds 291*67e74705SXin Li to an Objective-C instance method selector. As such, it prints the selector 292*67e74705SXin Li with a leading "``-``". 293*67e74705SXin Li 294*67e74705SXin Li**"q" format** 295*67e74705SXin Li 296*67e74705SXin LiExample: 297*67e74705SXin Li ``"candidate found by name lookup is %q0"`` 298*67e74705SXin LiClass: 299*67e74705SXin Li ``NamedDecl *`` 300*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 301*67e74705SXin Li This formatter indicates that the fully-qualified name of the declaration 302*67e74705SXin Li should be printed, e.g., "``std::vector``" rather than "``vector``". 303*67e74705SXin Li 304*67e74705SXin Li**"diff" format** 305*67e74705SXin Li 306*67e74705SXin LiExample: 307*67e74705SXin Li ``"no known conversion %diff{from $ to $|from argument type to parameter type}1,2"`` 308*67e74705SXin LiClass: 309*67e74705SXin Li ``QualType`` 310*67e74705SXin LiDescription: 311*67e74705SXin Li This formatter takes two ``QualType``\ s and attempts to print a template 312*67e74705SXin Li difference between the two. If tree printing is off, the text inside the 313*67e74705SXin Li braces before the pipe is printed, with the formatted text replacing the $. 314*67e74705SXin Li If tree printing is on, the text after the pipe is printed and a type tree is 315*67e74705SXin Li printed after the diagnostic message. 316*67e74705SXin Li 317*67e74705SXin LiIt is really easy to add format specifiers to the Clang diagnostics system, but 318*67e74705SXin Lithey should be discussed before they are added. If you are creating a lot of 319*67e74705SXin Lirepetitive diagnostics and/or have an idea for a useful formatter, please bring 320*67e74705SXin Liit up on the cfe-dev mailing list. 321*67e74705SXin Li 322*67e74705SXin Li.. _internals-producing-diag: 323*67e74705SXin Li 324*67e74705SXin LiProducing the Diagnostic 325*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 326*67e74705SXin Li 327*67e74705SXin LiNow that you've created the diagnostic in the ``Diagnostic*Kinds.td`` file, you 328*67e74705SXin Lineed to write the code that detects the condition in question and emits the new 329*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostic. Various components of Clang (e.g., the preprocessor, ``Sema``, 330*67e74705SXin Lietc.) provide a helper function named "``Diag``". It creates a diagnostic and 331*67e74705SXin Liaccepts the arguments, ranges, and other information that goes along with it. 332*67e74705SXin Li 333*67e74705SXin LiFor example, the binary expression error comes from code like this: 334*67e74705SXin Li 335*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 336*67e74705SXin Li 337*67e74705SXin Li if (various things that are bad) 338*67e74705SXin Li Diag(Loc, diag::err_typecheck_invalid_operands) 339*67e74705SXin Li << lex->getType() << rex->getType() 340*67e74705SXin Li << lex->getSourceRange() << rex->getSourceRange(); 341*67e74705SXin Li 342*67e74705SXin LiThis shows that use of the ``Diag`` method: it takes a location (a 343*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`SourceLocation <SourceLocation>` object) and a diagnostic enum value 344*67e74705SXin Li(which matches the name from ``Diagnostic*Kinds.td``). If the diagnostic takes 345*67e74705SXin Liarguments, they are specified with the ``<<`` operator: the first argument 346*67e74705SXin Libecomes ``%0``, the second becomes ``%1``, etc. The diagnostic interface 347*67e74705SXin Liallows you to specify arguments of many different types, including ``int`` and 348*67e74705SXin Li``unsigned`` for integer arguments, ``const char*`` and ``std::string`` for 349*67e74705SXin Listring arguments, ``DeclarationName`` and ``const IdentifierInfo *`` for names, 350*67e74705SXin Li``QualType`` for types, etc. ``SourceRange``\ s are also specified with the 351*67e74705SXin Li``<<`` operator, but do not have a specific ordering requirement. 352*67e74705SXin Li 353*67e74705SXin LiAs you can see, adding and producing a diagnostic is pretty straightforward. 354*67e74705SXin LiThe hard part is deciding exactly what you need to say to help the user, 355*67e74705SXin Lipicking a suitable wording, and providing the information needed to format it 356*67e74705SXin Licorrectly. The good news is that the call site that issues a diagnostic should 357*67e74705SXin Libe completely independent of how the diagnostic is formatted and in what 358*67e74705SXin Lilanguage it is rendered. 359*67e74705SXin Li 360*67e74705SXin LiFix-It Hints 361*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^ 362*67e74705SXin Li 363*67e74705SXin LiIn some cases, the front end emits diagnostics when it is clear that some small 364*67e74705SXin Lichange to the source code would fix the problem. For example, a missing 365*67e74705SXin Lisemicolon at the end of a statement or a use of deprecated syntax that is 366*67e74705SXin Lieasily rewritten into a more modern form. Clang tries very hard to emit the 367*67e74705SXin Lidiagnostic and recover gracefully in these and other cases. 368*67e74705SXin Li 369*67e74705SXin LiHowever, for these cases where the fix is obvious, the diagnostic can be 370*67e74705SXin Liannotated with a hint (referred to as a "fix-it hint") that describes how to 371*67e74705SXin Lichange the code referenced by the diagnostic to fix the problem. For example, 372*67e74705SXin Liit might add the missing semicolon at the end of the statement or rewrite the 373*67e74705SXin Liuse of a deprecated construct into something more palatable. Here is one such 374*67e74705SXin Liexample from the C++ front end, where we warn about the right-shift operator 375*67e74705SXin Lichanging meaning from C++98 to C++11: 376*67e74705SXin Li 377*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: text 378*67e74705SXin Li 379*67e74705SXin Li test.cpp:3:7: warning: use of right-shift operator ('>>') in template argument 380*67e74705SXin Li will require parentheses in C++11 381*67e74705SXin Li A<100 >> 2> *a; 382*67e74705SXin Li ^ 383*67e74705SXin Li ( ) 384*67e74705SXin Li 385*67e74705SXin LiHere, the fix-it hint is suggesting that parentheses be added, and showing 386*67e74705SXin Liexactly where those parentheses would be inserted into the source code. The 387*67e74705SXin Lifix-it hints themselves describe what changes to make to the source code in an 388*67e74705SXin Liabstract manner, which the text diagnostic printer renders as a line of 389*67e74705SXin Li"insertions" below the caret line. :ref:`Other diagnostic clients 390*67e74705SXin Li<DiagnosticClient>` might choose to render the code differently (e.g., as 391*67e74705SXin Limarkup inline) or even give the user the ability to automatically fix the 392*67e74705SXin Liproblem. 393*67e74705SXin Li 394*67e74705SXin LiFix-it hints on errors and warnings need to obey these rules: 395*67e74705SXin Li 396*67e74705SXin Li* Since they are automatically applied if ``-Xclang -fixit`` is passed to the 397*67e74705SXin Li driver, they should only be used when it's very likely they match the user's 398*67e74705SXin Li intent. 399*67e74705SXin Li* Clang must recover from errors as if the fix-it had been applied. 400*67e74705SXin Li 401*67e74705SXin LiIf a fix-it can't obey these rules, put the fix-it on a note. Fix-its on notes 402*67e74705SXin Liare not applied automatically. 403*67e74705SXin Li 404*67e74705SXin LiAll fix-it hints are described by the ``FixItHint`` class, instances of which 405*67e74705SXin Lishould be attached to the diagnostic using the ``<<`` operator in the same way 406*67e74705SXin Lithat highlighted source ranges and arguments are passed to the diagnostic. 407*67e74705SXin LiFix-it hints can be created with one of three constructors: 408*67e74705SXin Li 409*67e74705SXin Li* ``FixItHint::CreateInsertion(Loc, Code)`` 410*67e74705SXin Li 411*67e74705SXin Li Specifies that the given ``Code`` (a string) should be inserted before the 412*67e74705SXin Li source location ``Loc``. 413*67e74705SXin Li 414*67e74705SXin Li* ``FixItHint::CreateRemoval(Range)`` 415*67e74705SXin Li 416*67e74705SXin Li Specifies that the code in the given source ``Range`` should be removed. 417*67e74705SXin Li 418*67e74705SXin Li* ``FixItHint::CreateReplacement(Range, Code)`` 419*67e74705SXin Li 420*67e74705SXin Li Specifies that the code in the given source ``Range`` should be removed, 421*67e74705SXin Li and replaced with the given ``Code`` string. 422*67e74705SXin Li 423*67e74705SXin Li.. _DiagnosticClient: 424*67e74705SXin Li 425*67e74705SXin LiThe ``DiagnosticClient`` Interface 426*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 427*67e74705SXin Li 428*67e74705SXin LiOnce code generates a diagnostic with all of the arguments and the rest of the 429*67e74705SXin Lirelevant information, Clang needs to know what to do with it. As previously 430*67e74705SXin Limentioned, the diagnostic machinery goes through some filtering to map a 431*67e74705SXin Liseverity onto a diagnostic level, then (assuming the diagnostic is not mapped 432*67e74705SXin Lito "``Ignore``") it invokes an object that implements the ``DiagnosticClient`` 433*67e74705SXin Liinterface with the information. 434*67e74705SXin Li 435*67e74705SXin LiIt is possible to implement this interface in many different ways. For 436*67e74705SXin Liexample, the normal Clang ``DiagnosticClient`` (named 437*67e74705SXin Li``TextDiagnosticPrinter``) turns the arguments into strings (according to the 438*67e74705SXin Livarious formatting rules), prints out the file/line/column information and the 439*67e74705SXin Listring, then prints out the line of code, the source ranges, and the caret. 440*67e74705SXin LiHowever, this behavior isn't required. 441*67e74705SXin Li 442*67e74705SXin LiAnother implementation of the ``DiagnosticClient`` interface is the 443*67e74705SXin Li``TextDiagnosticBuffer`` class, which is used when Clang is in ``-verify`` 444*67e74705SXin Limode. Instead of formatting and printing out the diagnostics, this 445*67e74705SXin Liimplementation just captures and remembers the diagnostics as they fly by. 446*67e74705SXin LiThen ``-verify`` compares the list of produced diagnostics to the list of 447*67e74705SXin Liexpected ones. If they disagree, it prints out its own output. Full 448*67e74705SXin Lidocumentation for the ``-verify`` mode can be found in the Clang API 449*67e74705SXin Lidocumentation for `VerifyDiagnosticConsumer 450*67e74705SXin Li</doxygen/classclang_1_1VerifyDiagnosticConsumer.html#details>`_. 451*67e74705SXin Li 452*67e74705SXin LiThere are many other possible implementations of this interface, and this is 453*67e74705SXin Liwhy we prefer diagnostics to pass down rich structured information in 454*67e74705SXin Liarguments. For example, an HTML output might want declaration names be 455*67e74705SXin Lilinkified to where they come from in the source. Another example is that a GUI 456*67e74705SXin Limight let you click on typedefs to expand them. This application would want to 457*67e74705SXin Lipass significantly more information about types through to the GUI than a 458*67e74705SXin Lisimple flat string. The interface allows this to happen. 459*67e74705SXin Li 460*67e74705SXin Li.. _internals-diag-translation: 461*67e74705SXin Li 462*67e74705SXin LiAdding Translations to Clang 463*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 464*67e74705SXin Li 465*67e74705SXin LiNot possible yet! Diagnostic strings should be written in UTF-8, the client can 466*67e74705SXin Litranslate to the relevant code page if needed. Each translation completely 467*67e74705SXin Lireplaces the format string for the diagnostic. 468*67e74705SXin Li 469*67e74705SXin Li.. _SourceLocation: 470*67e74705SXin Li.. _SourceManager: 471*67e74705SXin Li 472*67e74705SXin LiThe ``SourceLocation`` and ``SourceManager`` classes 473*67e74705SXin Li---------------------------------------------------- 474*67e74705SXin Li 475*67e74705SXin LiStrangely enough, the ``SourceLocation`` class represents a location within the 476*67e74705SXin Lisource code of the program. Important design points include: 477*67e74705SXin Li 478*67e74705SXin Li#. ``sizeof(SourceLocation)`` must be extremely small, as these are embedded 479*67e74705SXin Li into many AST nodes and are passed around often. Currently it is 32 bits. 480*67e74705SXin Li#. ``SourceLocation`` must be a simple value object that can be efficiently 481*67e74705SXin Li copied. 482*67e74705SXin Li#. We should be able to represent a source location for any byte of any input 483*67e74705SXin Li file. This includes in the middle of tokens, in whitespace, in trigraphs, 484*67e74705SXin Li etc. 485*67e74705SXin Li#. A ``SourceLocation`` must encode the current ``#include`` stack that was 486*67e74705SXin Li active when the location was processed. For example, if the location 487*67e74705SXin Li corresponds to a token, it should contain the set of ``#include``\ s active 488*67e74705SXin Li when the token was lexed. This allows us to print the ``#include`` stack 489*67e74705SXin Li for a diagnostic. 490*67e74705SXin Li#. ``SourceLocation`` must be able to describe macro expansions, capturing both 491*67e74705SXin Li the ultimate instantiation point and the source of the original character 492*67e74705SXin Li data. 493*67e74705SXin Li 494*67e74705SXin LiIn practice, the ``SourceLocation`` works together with the ``SourceManager`` 495*67e74705SXin Liclass to encode two pieces of information about a location: its spelling 496*67e74705SXin Lilocation and its instantiation location. For most tokens, these will be the 497*67e74705SXin Lisame. However, for a macro expansion (or tokens that came from a ``_Pragma`` 498*67e74705SXin Lidirective) these will describe the location of the characters corresponding to 499*67e74705SXin Lithe token and the location where the token was used (i.e., the macro 500*67e74705SXin Liinstantiation point or the location of the ``_Pragma`` itself). 501*67e74705SXin Li 502*67e74705SXin LiThe Clang front-end inherently depends on the location of a token being tracked 503*67e74705SXin Licorrectly. If it is ever incorrect, the front-end may get confused and die. 504*67e74705SXin LiThe reason for this is that the notion of the "spelling" of a ``Token`` in 505*67e74705SXin LiClang depends on being able to find the original input characters for the 506*67e74705SXin Litoken. This concept maps directly to the "spelling location" for the token. 507*67e74705SXin Li 508*67e74705SXin Li``SourceRange`` and ``CharSourceRange`` 509*67e74705SXin Li--------------------------------------- 510*67e74705SXin Li 511*67e74705SXin Li.. mostly taken from http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-August/010595.html 512*67e74705SXin Li 513*67e74705SXin LiClang represents most source ranges by [first, last], where "first" and "last" 514*67e74705SXin Lieach point to the beginning of their respective tokens. For example consider 515*67e74705SXin Lithe ``SourceRange`` of the following statement: 516*67e74705SXin Li 517*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: text 518*67e74705SXin Li 519*67e74705SXin Li x = foo + bar; 520*67e74705SXin Li ^first ^last 521*67e74705SXin Li 522*67e74705SXin LiTo map from this representation to a character-based representation, the "last" 523*67e74705SXin Lilocation needs to be adjusted to point to (or past) the end of that token with 524*67e74705SXin Lieither ``Lexer::MeasureTokenLength()`` or ``Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken()``. For 525*67e74705SXin Lithe rare cases where character-level source ranges information is needed we use 526*67e74705SXin Lithe ``CharSourceRange`` class. 527*67e74705SXin Li 528*67e74705SXin LiThe Driver Library 529*67e74705SXin Li================== 530*67e74705SXin Li 531*67e74705SXin LiThe clang Driver and library are documented :doc:`here <DriverInternals>`. 532*67e74705SXin Li 533*67e74705SXin LiPrecompiled Headers 534*67e74705SXin Li=================== 535*67e74705SXin Li 536*67e74705SXin LiClang supports two implementations of precompiled headers. The default 537*67e74705SXin Liimplementation, precompiled headers (:doc:`PCH <PCHInternals>`) uses a 538*67e74705SXin Liserialized representation of Clang's internal data structures, encoded with the 539*67e74705SXin Li`LLVM bitstream format <http://llvm.org/docs/BitCodeFormat.html>`_. 540*67e74705SXin LiPretokenized headers (:doc:`PTH <PTHInternals>`), on the other hand, contain a 541*67e74705SXin Liserialized representation of the tokens encountered when preprocessing a header 542*67e74705SXin Li(and anything that header includes). 543*67e74705SXin Li 544*67e74705SXin LiThe Frontend Library 545*67e74705SXin Li==================== 546*67e74705SXin Li 547*67e74705SXin LiThe Frontend library contains functionality useful for building tools on top of 548*67e74705SXin Lithe Clang libraries, for example several methods for outputting diagnostics. 549*67e74705SXin Li 550*67e74705SXin LiThe Lexer and Preprocessor Library 551*67e74705SXin Li================================== 552*67e74705SXin Li 553*67e74705SXin LiThe Lexer library contains several tightly-connected classes that are involved 554*67e74705SXin Liwith the nasty process of lexing and preprocessing C source code. The main 555*67e74705SXin Liinterface to this library for outside clients is the large ``Preprocessor`` 556*67e74705SXin Liclass. It contains the various pieces of state that are required to coherently 557*67e74705SXin Liread tokens out of a translation unit. 558*67e74705SXin Li 559*67e74705SXin LiThe core interface to the ``Preprocessor`` object (once it is set up) is the 560*67e74705SXin Li``Preprocessor::Lex`` method, which returns the next :ref:`Token <Token>` from 561*67e74705SXin Lithe preprocessor stream. There are two types of token providers that the 562*67e74705SXin Lipreprocessor is capable of reading from: a buffer lexer (provided by the 563*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`Lexer <Lexer>` class) and a buffered token stream (provided by the 564*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`TokenLexer <TokenLexer>` class). 565*67e74705SXin Li 566*67e74705SXin Li.. _Token: 567*67e74705SXin Li 568*67e74705SXin LiThe Token class 569*67e74705SXin Li--------------- 570*67e74705SXin Li 571*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Token`` class is used to represent a single lexed token. Tokens are 572*67e74705SXin Liintended to be used by the lexer/preprocess and parser libraries, but are not 573*67e74705SXin Liintended to live beyond them (for example, they should not live in the ASTs). 574*67e74705SXin Li 575*67e74705SXin LiTokens most often live on the stack (or some other location that is efficient 576*67e74705SXin Lito access) as the parser is running, but occasionally do get buffered up. For 577*67e74705SXin Liexample, macro definitions are stored as a series of tokens, and the C++ 578*67e74705SXin Lifront-end periodically needs to buffer tokens up for tentative parsing and 579*67e74705SXin Livarious pieces of look-ahead. As such, the size of a ``Token`` matters. On a 580*67e74705SXin Li32-bit system, ``sizeof(Token)`` is currently 16 bytes. 581*67e74705SXin Li 582*67e74705SXin LiTokens occur in two forms: :ref:`annotation tokens <AnnotationToken>` and 583*67e74705SXin Linormal tokens. Normal tokens are those returned by the lexer, annotation 584*67e74705SXin Litokens represent semantic information and are produced by the parser, replacing 585*67e74705SXin Linormal tokens in the token stream. Normal tokens contain the following 586*67e74705SXin Liinformation: 587*67e74705SXin Li 588*67e74705SXin Li* **A SourceLocation** --- This indicates the location of the start of the 589*67e74705SXin Li token. 590*67e74705SXin Li 591*67e74705SXin Li* **A length** --- This stores the length of the token as stored in the 592*67e74705SXin Li ``SourceBuffer``. For tokens that include them, this length includes 593*67e74705SXin Li trigraphs and escaped newlines which are ignored by later phases of the 594*67e74705SXin Li compiler. By pointing into the original source buffer, it is always possible 595*67e74705SXin Li to get the original spelling of a token completely accurately. 596*67e74705SXin Li 597*67e74705SXin Li* **IdentifierInfo** --- If a token takes the form of an identifier, and if 598*67e74705SXin Li identifier lookup was enabled when the token was lexed (e.g., the lexer was 599*67e74705SXin Li not reading in "raw" mode) this contains a pointer to the unique hash value 600*67e74705SXin Li for the identifier. Because the lookup happens before keyword 601*67e74705SXin Li identification, this field is set even for language keywords like "``for``". 602*67e74705SXin Li 603*67e74705SXin Li* **TokenKind** --- This indicates the kind of token as classified by the 604*67e74705SXin Li lexer. This includes things like ``tok::starequal`` (for the "``*=``" 605*67e74705SXin Li operator), ``tok::ampamp`` for the "``&&``" token, and keyword values (e.g., 606*67e74705SXin Li ``tok::kw_for``) for identifiers that correspond to keywords. Note that 607*67e74705SXin Li some tokens can be spelled multiple ways. For example, C++ supports 608*67e74705SXin Li "operator keywords", where things like "``and``" are treated exactly like the 609*67e74705SXin Li "``&&``" operator. In these cases, the kind value is set to ``tok::ampamp``, 610*67e74705SXin Li which is good for the parser, which doesn't have to consider both forms. For 611*67e74705SXin Li something that cares about which form is used (e.g., the preprocessor 612*67e74705SXin Li "stringize" operator) the spelling indicates the original form. 613*67e74705SXin Li 614*67e74705SXin Li* **Flags** --- There are currently four flags tracked by the 615*67e74705SXin Li lexer/preprocessor system on a per-token basis: 616*67e74705SXin Li 617*67e74705SXin Li #. **StartOfLine** --- This was the first token that occurred on its input 618*67e74705SXin Li source line. 619*67e74705SXin Li #. **LeadingSpace** --- There was a space character either immediately before 620*67e74705SXin Li the token or transitively before the token as it was expanded through a 621*67e74705SXin Li macro. The definition of this flag is very closely defined by the 622*67e74705SXin Li stringizing requirements of the preprocessor. 623*67e74705SXin Li #. **DisableExpand** --- This flag is used internally to the preprocessor to 624*67e74705SXin Li represent identifier tokens which have macro expansion disabled. This 625*67e74705SXin Li prevents them from being considered as candidates for macro expansion ever 626*67e74705SXin Li in the future. 627*67e74705SXin Li #. **NeedsCleaning** --- This flag is set if the original spelling for the 628*67e74705SXin Li token includes a trigraph or escaped newline. Since this is uncommon, 629*67e74705SXin Li many pieces of code can fast-path on tokens that did not need cleaning. 630*67e74705SXin Li 631*67e74705SXin LiOne interesting (and somewhat unusual) aspect of normal tokens is that they 632*67e74705SXin Lidon't contain any semantic information about the lexed value. For example, if 633*67e74705SXin Lithe token was a pp-number token, we do not represent the value of the number 634*67e74705SXin Lithat was lexed (this is left for later pieces of code to decide). 635*67e74705SXin LiAdditionally, the lexer library has no notion of typedef names vs variable 636*67e74705SXin Linames: both are returned as identifiers, and the parser is left to decide 637*67e74705SXin Liwhether a specific identifier is a typedef or a variable (tracking this 638*67e74705SXin Lirequires scope information among other things). The parser can do this 639*67e74705SXin Litranslation by replacing tokens returned by the preprocessor with "Annotation 640*67e74705SXin LiTokens". 641*67e74705SXin Li 642*67e74705SXin Li.. _AnnotationToken: 643*67e74705SXin Li 644*67e74705SXin LiAnnotation Tokens 645*67e74705SXin Li----------------- 646*67e74705SXin Li 647*67e74705SXin LiAnnotation tokens are tokens that are synthesized by the parser and injected 648*67e74705SXin Liinto the preprocessor's token stream (replacing existing tokens) to record 649*67e74705SXin Lisemantic information found by the parser. For example, if "``foo``" is found 650*67e74705SXin Lito be a typedef, the "``foo``" ``tok::identifier`` token is replaced with an 651*67e74705SXin Li``tok::annot_typename``. This is useful for a couple of reasons: 1) this makes 652*67e74705SXin Liit easy to handle qualified type names (e.g., "``foo::bar::baz<42>::t``") in 653*67e74705SXin LiC++ as a single "token" in the parser. 2) if the parser backtracks, the 654*67e74705SXin Lireparse does not need to redo semantic analysis to determine whether a token 655*67e74705SXin Lisequence is a variable, type, template, etc. 656*67e74705SXin Li 657*67e74705SXin LiAnnotation tokens are created by the parser and reinjected into the parser's 658*67e74705SXin Litoken stream (when backtracking is enabled). Because they can only exist in 659*67e74705SXin Litokens that the preprocessor-proper is done with, it doesn't need to keep 660*67e74705SXin Liaround flags like "start of line" that the preprocessor uses to do its job. 661*67e74705SXin LiAdditionally, an annotation token may "cover" a sequence of preprocessor tokens 662*67e74705SXin Li(e.g., "``a::b::c``" is five preprocessor tokens). As such, the valid fields 663*67e74705SXin Liof an annotation token are different than the fields for a normal token (but 664*67e74705SXin Lithey are multiplexed into the normal ``Token`` fields): 665*67e74705SXin Li 666*67e74705SXin Li* **SourceLocation "Location"** --- The ``SourceLocation`` for the annotation 667*67e74705SXin Li token indicates the first token replaced by the annotation token. In the 668*67e74705SXin Li example above, it would be the location of the "``a``" identifier. 669*67e74705SXin Li* **SourceLocation "AnnotationEndLoc"** --- This holds the location of the last 670*67e74705SXin Li token replaced with the annotation token. In the example above, it would be 671*67e74705SXin Li the location of the "``c``" identifier. 672*67e74705SXin Li* **void* "AnnotationValue"** --- This contains an opaque object that the 673*67e74705SXin Li parser gets from ``Sema``. The parser merely preserves the information for 674*67e74705SXin Li ``Sema`` to later interpret based on the annotation token kind. 675*67e74705SXin Li* **TokenKind "Kind"** --- This indicates the kind of Annotation token this is. 676*67e74705SXin Li See below for the different valid kinds. 677*67e74705SXin Li 678*67e74705SXin LiAnnotation tokens currently come in three kinds: 679*67e74705SXin Li 680*67e74705SXin Li#. **tok::annot_typename**: This annotation token represents a resolved 681*67e74705SXin Li typename token that is potentially qualified. The ``AnnotationValue`` field 682*67e74705SXin Li contains the ``QualType`` returned by ``Sema::getTypeName()``, possibly with 683*67e74705SXin Li source location information attached. 684*67e74705SXin Li#. **tok::annot_cxxscope**: This annotation token represents a C++ scope 685*67e74705SXin Li specifier, such as "``A::B::``". This corresponds to the grammar 686*67e74705SXin Li productions "*::*" and "*:: [opt] nested-name-specifier*". The 687*67e74705SXin Li ``AnnotationValue`` pointer is a ``NestedNameSpecifier *`` returned by the 688*67e74705SXin Li ``Sema::ActOnCXXGlobalScopeSpecifier`` and 689*67e74705SXin Li ``Sema::ActOnCXXNestedNameSpecifier`` callbacks. 690*67e74705SXin Li#. **tok::annot_template_id**: This annotation token represents a C++ 691*67e74705SXin Li template-id such as "``foo<int, 4>``", where "``foo``" is the name of a 692*67e74705SXin Li template. The ``AnnotationValue`` pointer is a pointer to a ``malloc``'d 693*67e74705SXin Li ``TemplateIdAnnotation`` object. Depending on the context, a parsed 694*67e74705SXin Li template-id that names a type might become a typename annotation token (if 695*67e74705SXin Li all we care about is the named type, e.g., because it occurs in a type 696*67e74705SXin Li specifier) or might remain a template-id token (if we want to retain more 697*67e74705SXin Li source location information or produce a new type, e.g., in a declaration of 698*67e74705SXin Li a class template specialization). template-id annotation tokens that refer 699*67e74705SXin Li to a type can be "upgraded" to typename annotation tokens by the parser. 700*67e74705SXin Li 701*67e74705SXin LiAs mentioned above, annotation tokens are not returned by the preprocessor, 702*67e74705SXin Lithey are formed on demand by the parser. This means that the parser has to be 703*67e74705SXin Liaware of cases where an annotation could occur and form it where appropriate. 704*67e74705SXin LiThis is somewhat similar to how the parser handles Translation Phase 6 of C99: 705*67e74705SXin LiString Concatenation (see C99 5.1.1.2). In the case of string concatenation, 706*67e74705SXin Lithe preprocessor just returns distinct ``tok::string_literal`` and 707*67e74705SXin Li``tok::wide_string_literal`` tokens and the parser eats a sequence of them 708*67e74705SXin Liwherever the grammar indicates that a string literal can occur. 709*67e74705SXin Li 710*67e74705SXin LiIn order to do this, whenever the parser expects a ``tok::identifier`` or 711*67e74705SXin Li``tok::coloncolon``, it should call the ``TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeToken`` or 712*67e74705SXin Li``TryAnnotateCXXScopeToken`` methods to form the annotation token. These 713*67e74705SXin Limethods will maximally form the specified annotation tokens and replace the 714*67e74705SXin Licurrent token with them, if applicable. If the current tokens is not valid for 715*67e74705SXin Lian annotation token, it will remain an identifier or "``::``" token. 716*67e74705SXin Li 717*67e74705SXin Li.. _Lexer: 718*67e74705SXin Li 719*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Lexer`` class 720*67e74705SXin Li------------------- 721*67e74705SXin Li 722*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Lexer`` class provides the mechanics of lexing tokens out of a source 723*67e74705SXin Libuffer and deciding what they mean. The ``Lexer`` is complicated by the fact 724*67e74705SXin Lithat it operates on raw buffers that have not had spelling eliminated (this is 725*67e74705SXin Lia necessity to get decent performance), but this is countered with careful 726*67e74705SXin Licoding as well as standard performance techniques (for example, the comment 727*67e74705SXin Lihandling code is vectorized on X86 and PowerPC hosts). 728*67e74705SXin Li 729*67e74705SXin LiThe lexer has a couple of interesting modal features: 730*67e74705SXin Li 731*67e74705SXin Li* The lexer can operate in "raw" mode. This mode has several features that 732*67e74705SXin Li make it possible to quickly lex the file (e.g., it stops identifier lookup, 733*67e74705SXin Li doesn't specially handle preprocessor tokens, handles EOF differently, etc). 734*67e74705SXin Li This mode is used for lexing within an "``#if 0``" block, for example. 735*67e74705SXin Li* The lexer can capture and return comments as tokens. This is required to 736*67e74705SXin Li support the ``-C`` preprocessor mode, which passes comments through, and is 737*67e74705SXin Li used by the diagnostic checker to identifier expect-error annotations. 738*67e74705SXin Li* The lexer can be in ``ParsingFilename`` mode, which happens when 739*67e74705SXin Li preprocessing after reading a ``#include`` directive. This mode changes the 740*67e74705SXin Li parsing of "``<``" to return an "angled string" instead of a bunch of tokens 741*67e74705SXin Li for each thing within the filename. 742*67e74705SXin Li* When parsing a preprocessor directive (after "``#``") the 743*67e74705SXin Li ``ParsingPreprocessorDirective`` mode is entered. This changes the parser to 744*67e74705SXin Li return EOD at a newline. 745*67e74705SXin Li* The ``Lexer`` uses a ``LangOptions`` object to know whether trigraphs are 746*67e74705SXin Li enabled, whether C++ or ObjC keywords are recognized, etc. 747*67e74705SXin Li 748*67e74705SXin LiIn addition to these modes, the lexer keeps track of a couple of other features 749*67e74705SXin Lithat are local to a lexed buffer, which change as the buffer is lexed: 750*67e74705SXin Li 751*67e74705SXin Li* The ``Lexer`` uses ``BufferPtr`` to keep track of the current character being 752*67e74705SXin Li lexed. 753*67e74705SXin Li* The ``Lexer`` uses ``IsAtStartOfLine`` to keep track of whether the next 754*67e74705SXin Li lexed token will start with its "start of line" bit set. 755*67e74705SXin Li* The ``Lexer`` keeps track of the current "``#if``" directives that are active 756*67e74705SXin Li (which can be nested). 757*67e74705SXin Li* The ``Lexer`` keeps track of an :ref:`MultipleIncludeOpt 758*67e74705SXin Li <MultipleIncludeOpt>` object, which is used to detect whether the buffer uses 759*67e74705SXin Li the standard "``#ifndef XX`` / ``#define XX``" idiom to prevent multiple 760*67e74705SXin Li inclusion. If a buffer does, subsequent includes can be ignored if the 761*67e74705SXin Li "``XX``" macro is defined. 762*67e74705SXin Li 763*67e74705SXin Li.. _TokenLexer: 764*67e74705SXin Li 765*67e74705SXin LiThe ``TokenLexer`` class 766*67e74705SXin Li------------------------ 767*67e74705SXin Li 768*67e74705SXin LiThe ``TokenLexer`` class is a token provider that returns tokens from a list of 769*67e74705SXin Litokens that came from somewhere else. It typically used for two things: 1) 770*67e74705SXin Lireturning tokens from a macro definition as it is being expanded 2) returning 771*67e74705SXin Litokens from an arbitrary buffer of tokens. The later use is used by 772*67e74705SXin Li``_Pragma`` and will most likely be used to handle unbounded look-ahead for the 773*67e74705SXin LiC++ parser. 774*67e74705SXin Li 775*67e74705SXin Li.. _MultipleIncludeOpt: 776*67e74705SXin Li 777*67e74705SXin LiThe ``MultipleIncludeOpt`` class 778*67e74705SXin Li-------------------------------- 779*67e74705SXin Li 780*67e74705SXin LiThe ``MultipleIncludeOpt`` class implements a really simple little state 781*67e74705SXin Limachine that is used to detect the standard "``#ifndef XX`` / ``#define XX``" 782*67e74705SXin Liidiom that people typically use to prevent multiple inclusion of headers. If a 783*67e74705SXin Libuffer uses this idiom and is subsequently ``#include``'d, the preprocessor can 784*67e74705SXin Lisimply check to see whether the guarding condition is defined or not. If so, 785*67e74705SXin Lithe preprocessor can completely ignore the include of the header. 786*67e74705SXin Li 787*67e74705SXin Li.. _Parser: 788*67e74705SXin Li 789*67e74705SXin LiThe Parser Library 790*67e74705SXin Li================== 791*67e74705SXin Li 792*67e74705SXin LiThis library contains a recursive-descent parser that polls tokens from the 793*67e74705SXin Lipreprocessor and notifies a client of the parsing progress. 794*67e74705SXin Li 795*67e74705SXin LiHistorically, the parser used to talk to an abstract ``Action`` interface that 796*67e74705SXin Lihad virtual methods for parse events, for example ``ActOnBinOp()``. When Clang 797*67e74705SXin Ligrew C++ support, the parser stopped supporting general ``Action`` clients -- 798*67e74705SXin Liit now always talks to the :ref:`Sema libray <Sema>`. However, the Parser 799*67e74705SXin Listill accesses AST objects only through opaque types like ``ExprResult`` and 800*67e74705SXin Li``StmtResult``. Only :ref:`Sema <Sema>` looks at the AST node contents of these 801*67e74705SXin Liwrappers. 802*67e74705SXin Li 803*67e74705SXin Li.. _AST: 804*67e74705SXin Li 805*67e74705SXin LiThe AST Library 806*67e74705SXin Li=============== 807*67e74705SXin Li 808*67e74705SXin Li.. _Type: 809*67e74705SXin Li 810*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Type`` class and its subclasses 811*67e74705SXin Li------------------------------------- 812*67e74705SXin Li 813*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Type`` class (and its subclasses) are an important part of the AST. 814*67e74705SXin LiTypes are accessed through the ``ASTContext`` class, which implicitly creates 815*67e74705SXin Liand uniques them as they are needed. Types have a couple of non-obvious 816*67e74705SXin Lifeatures: 1) they do not capture type qualifiers like ``const`` or ``volatile`` 817*67e74705SXin Li(see :ref:`QualType <QualType>`), and 2) they implicitly capture typedef 818*67e74705SXin Liinformation. Once created, types are immutable (unlike decls). 819*67e74705SXin Li 820*67e74705SXin LiTypedefs in C make semantic analysis a bit more complex than it would be without 821*67e74705SXin Lithem. The issue is that we want to capture typedef information and represent it 822*67e74705SXin Liin the AST perfectly, but the semantics of operations need to "see through" 823*67e74705SXin Litypedefs. For example, consider this code: 824*67e74705SXin Li 825*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 826*67e74705SXin Li 827*67e74705SXin Li void func() { 828*67e74705SXin Li typedef int foo; 829*67e74705SXin Li foo X, *Y; 830*67e74705SXin Li typedef foo *bar; 831*67e74705SXin Li bar Z; 832*67e74705SXin Li *X; // error 833*67e74705SXin Li **Y; // error 834*67e74705SXin Li **Z; // error 835*67e74705SXin Li } 836*67e74705SXin Li 837*67e74705SXin LiThe code above is illegal, and thus we expect there to be diagnostics emitted 838*67e74705SXin Lion the annotated lines. In this example, we expect to get: 839*67e74705SXin Li 840*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: text 841*67e74705SXin Li 842*67e74705SXin Li test.c:6:1: error: indirection requires pointer operand ('foo' invalid) 843*67e74705SXin Li *X; // error 844*67e74705SXin Li ^~ 845*67e74705SXin Li test.c:7:1: error: indirection requires pointer operand ('foo' invalid) 846*67e74705SXin Li **Y; // error 847*67e74705SXin Li ^~~ 848*67e74705SXin Li test.c:8:1: error: indirection requires pointer operand ('foo' invalid) 849*67e74705SXin Li **Z; // error 850*67e74705SXin Li ^~~ 851*67e74705SXin Li 852*67e74705SXin LiWhile this example is somewhat silly, it illustrates the point: we want to 853*67e74705SXin Liretain typedef information where possible, so that we can emit errors about 854*67e74705SXin Li"``std::string``" instead of "``std::basic_string<char, std:...``". Doing this 855*67e74705SXin Lirequires properly keeping typedef information (for example, the type of ``X`` 856*67e74705SXin Liis "``foo``", not "``int``"), and requires properly propagating it through the 857*67e74705SXin Livarious operators (for example, the type of ``*Y`` is "``foo``", not 858*67e74705SXin Li"``int``"). In order to retain this information, the type of these expressions 859*67e74705SXin Liis an instance of the ``TypedefType`` class, which indicates that the type of 860*67e74705SXin Lithese expressions is a typedef for "``foo``". 861*67e74705SXin Li 862*67e74705SXin LiRepresenting types like this is great for diagnostics, because the 863*67e74705SXin Liuser-specified type is always immediately available. There are two problems 864*67e74705SXin Liwith this: first, various semantic checks need to make judgements about the 865*67e74705SXin Li*actual structure* of a type, ignoring typedefs. Second, we need an efficient 866*67e74705SXin Liway to query whether two types are structurally identical to each other, 867*67e74705SXin Liignoring typedefs. The solution to both of these problems is the idea of 868*67e74705SXin Licanonical types. 869*67e74705SXin Li 870*67e74705SXin LiCanonical Types 871*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 872*67e74705SXin Li 873*67e74705SXin LiEvery instance of the ``Type`` class contains a canonical type pointer. For 874*67e74705SXin Lisimple types with no typedefs involved (e.g., "``int``", "``int*``", 875*67e74705SXin Li"``int**``"), the type just points to itself. For types that have a typedef 876*67e74705SXin Lisomewhere in their structure (e.g., "``foo``", "``foo*``", "``foo**``", 877*67e74705SXin Li"``bar``"), the canonical type pointer points to their structurally equivalent 878*67e74705SXin Litype without any typedefs (e.g., "``int``", "``int*``", "``int**``", and 879*67e74705SXin Li"``int*``" respectively). 880*67e74705SXin Li 881*67e74705SXin LiThis design provides a constant time operation (dereferencing the canonical type 882*67e74705SXin Lipointer) that gives us access to the structure of types. For example, we can 883*67e74705SXin Litrivially tell that "``bar``" and "``foo*``" are the same type by dereferencing 884*67e74705SXin Litheir canonical type pointers and doing a pointer comparison (they both point 885*67e74705SXin Lito the single "``int*``" type). 886*67e74705SXin Li 887*67e74705SXin LiCanonical types and typedef types bring up some complexities that must be 888*67e74705SXin Licarefully managed. Specifically, the ``isa``/``cast``/``dyn_cast`` operators 889*67e74705SXin Ligenerally shouldn't be used in code that is inspecting the AST. For example, 890*67e74705SXin Liwhen type checking the indirection operator (unary "``*``" on a pointer), the 891*67e74705SXin Litype checker must verify that the operand has a pointer type. It would not be 892*67e74705SXin Licorrect to check that with "``isa<PointerType>(SubExpr->getType())``", because 893*67e74705SXin Lithis predicate would fail if the subexpression had a typedef type. 894*67e74705SXin Li 895*67e74705SXin LiThe solution to this problem are a set of helper methods on ``Type``, used to 896*67e74705SXin Licheck their properties. In this case, it would be correct to use 897*67e74705SXin Li"``SubExpr->getType()->isPointerType()``" to do the check. This predicate will 898*67e74705SXin Lireturn true if the *canonical type is a pointer*, which is true any time the 899*67e74705SXin Litype is structurally a pointer type. The only hard part here is remembering 900*67e74705SXin Linot to use the ``isa``/``cast``/``dyn_cast`` operations. 901*67e74705SXin Li 902*67e74705SXin LiThe second problem we face is how to get access to the pointer type once we 903*67e74705SXin Liknow it exists. To continue the example, the result type of the indirection 904*67e74705SXin Lioperator is the pointee type of the subexpression. In order to determine the 905*67e74705SXin Litype, we need to get the instance of ``PointerType`` that best captures the 906*67e74705SXin Litypedef information in the program. If the type of the expression is literally 907*67e74705SXin Lia ``PointerType``, we can return that, otherwise we have to dig through the 908*67e74705SXin Litypedefs to find the pointer type. For example, if the subexpression had type 909*67e74705SXin Li"``foo*``", we could return that type as the result. If the subexpression had 910*67e74705SXin Litype "``bar``", we want to return "``foo*``" (note that we do *not* want 911*67e74705SXin Li"``int*``"). In order to provide all of this, ``Type`` has a 912*67e74705SXin Li``getAsPointerType()`` method that checks whether the type is structurally a 913*67e74705SXin Li``PointerType`` and, if so, returns the best one. If not, it returns a null 914*67e74705SXin Lipointer. 915*67e74705SXin Li 916*67e74705SXin LiThis structure is somewhat mystical, but after meditating on it, it will make 917*67e74705SXin Lisense to you :). 918*67e74705SXin Li 919*67e74705SXin Li.. _QualType: 920*67e74705SXin Li 921*67e74705SXin LiThe ``QualType`` class 922*67e74705SXin Li---------------------- 923*67e74705SXin Li 924*67e74705SXin LiThe ``QualType`` class is designed as a trivial value class that is small, 925*67e74705SXin Lipassed by-value and is efficient to query. The idea of ``QualType`` is that it 926*67e74705SXin Listores the type qualifiers (``const``, ``volatile``, ``restrict``, plus some 927*67e74705SXin Liextended qualifiers required by language extensions) separately from the types 928*67e74705SXin Lithemselves. ``QualType`` is conceptually a pair of "``Type*``" and the bits 929*67e74705SXin Lifor these type qualifiers. 930*67e74705SXin Li 931*67e74705SXin LiBy storing the type qualifiers as bits in the conceptual pair, it is extremely 932*67e74705SXin Liefficient to get the set of qualifiers on a ``QualType`` (just return the field 933*67e74705SXin Liof the pair), add a type qualifier (which is a trivial constant-time operation 934*67e74705SXin Lithat sets a bit), and remove one or more type qualifiers (just return a 935*67e74705SXin Li``QualType`` with the bitfield set to empty). 936*67e74705SXin Li 937*67e74705SXin LiFurther, because the bits are stored outside of the type itself, we do not need 938*67e74705SXin Lito create duplicates of types with different sets of qualifiers (i.e. there is 939*67e74705SXin Lionly a single heap allocated "``int``" type: "``const int``" and "``volatile 940*67e74705SXin Liconst int``" both point to the same heap allocated "``int``" type). This 941*67e74705SXin Lireduces the heap size used to represent bits and also means we do not have to 942*67e74705SXin Liconsider qualifiers when uniquing types (:ref:`Type <Type>` does not even 943*67e74705SXin Licontain qualifiers). 944*67e74705SXin Li 945*67e74705SXin LiIn practice, the two most common type qualifiers (``const`` and ``restrict``) 946*67e74705SXin Liare stored in the low bits of the pointer to the ``Type`` object, together with 947*67e74705SXin Lia flag indicating whether extended qualifiers are present (which must be 948*67e74705SXin Liheap-allocated). This means that ``QualType`` is exactly the same size as a 949*67e74705SXin Lipointer. 950*67e74705SXin Li 951*67e74705SXin Li.. _DeclarationName: 952*67e74705SXin Li 953*67e74705SXin LiDeclaration names 954*67e74705SXin Li----------------- 955*67e74705SXin Li 956*67e74705SXin LiThe ``DeclarationName`` class represents the name of a declaration in Clang. 957*67e74705SXin LiDeclarations in the C family of languages can take several different forms. 958*67e74705SXin LiMost declarations are named by simple identifiers, e.g., "``f``" and "``x``" in 959*67e74705SXin Lithe function declaration ``f(int x)``. In C++, declaration names can also name 960*67e74705SXin Liclass constructors ("``Class``" in ``struct Class { Class(); }``), class 961*67e74705SXin Lidestructors ("``~Class``"), overloaded operator names ("``operator+``"), and 962*67e74705SXin Liconversion functions ("``operator void const *``"). In Objective-C, 963*67e74705SXin Lideclaration names can refer to the names of Objective-C methods, which involve 964*67e74705SXin Lithe method name and the parameters, collectively called a *selector*, e.g., 965*67e74705SXin Li"``setWidth:height:``". Since all of these kinds of entities --- variables, 966*67e74705SXin Lifunctions, Objective-C methods, C++ constructors, destructors, and operators 967*67e74705SXin Li--- are represented as subclasses of Clang's common ``NamedDecl`` class, 968*67e74705SXin Li``DeclarationName`` is designed to efficiently represent any kind of name. 969*67e74705SXin Li 970*67e74705SXin LiGiven a ``DeclarationName`` ``N``, ``N.getNameKind()`` will produce a value 971*67e74705SXin Lithat describes what kind of name ``N`` stores. There are 10 options (all of 972*67e74705SXin Lithe names are inside the ``DeclarationName`` class). 973*67e74705SXin Li 974*67e74705SXin Li``Identifier`` 975*67e74705SXin Li 976*67e74705SXin Li The name is a simple identifier. Use ``N.getAsIdentifierInfo()`` to retrieve 977*67e74705SXin Li the corresponding ``IdentifierInfo*`` pointing to the actual identifier. 978*67e74705SXin Li 979*67e74705SXin Li``ObjCZeroArgSelector``, ``ObjCOneArgSelector``, ``ObjCMultiArgSelector`` 980*67e74705SXin Li 981*67e74705SXin Li The name is an Objective-C selector, which can be retrieved as a ``Selector`` 982*67e74705SXin Li instance via ``N.getObjCSelector()``. The three possible name kinds for 983*67e74705SXin Li Objective-C reflect an optimization within the ``DeclarationName`` class: 984*67e74705SXin Li both zero- and one-argument selectors are stored as a masked 985*67e74705SXin Li ``IdentifierInfo`` pointer, and therefore require very little space, since 986*67e74705SXin Li zero- and one-argument selectors are far more common than multi-argument 987*67e74705SXin Li selectors (which use a different structure). 988*67e74705SXin Li 989*67e74705SXin Li``CXXConstructorName`` 990*67e74705SXin Li 991*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++ constructor name. Use ``N.getCXXNameType()`` to retrieve 992*67e74705SXin Li the :ref:`type <QualType>` that this constructor is meant to construct. The 993*67e74705SXin Li type is always the canonical type, since all constructors for a given type 994*67e74705SXin Li have the same name. 995*67e74705SXin Li 996*67e74705SXin Li``CXXDestructorName`` 997*67e74705SXin Li 998*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++ destructor name. Use ``N.getCXXNameType()`` to retrieve 999*67e74705SXin Li the :ref:`type <QualType>` whose destructor is being named. This type is 1000*67e74705SXin Li always a canonical type. 1001*67e74705SXin Li 1002*67e74705SXin Li``CXXConversionFunctionName`` 1003*67e74705SXin Li 1004*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++ conversion function. Conversion functions are named 1005*67e74705SXin Li according to the type they convert to, e.g., "``operator void const *``". 1006*67e74705SXin Li Use ``N.getCXXNameType()`` to retrieve the type that this conversion function 1007*67e74705SXin Li converts to. This type is always a canonical type. 1008*67e74705SXin Li 1009*67e74705SXin Li``CXXOperatorName`` 1010*67e74705SXin Li 1011*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++ overloaded operator name. Overloaded operators are named 1012*67e74705SXin Li according to their spelling, e.g., "``operator+``" or "``operator new []``". 1013*67e74705SXin Li Use ``N.getCXXOverloadedOperator()`` to retrieve the overloaded operator (a 1014*67e74705SXin Li value of type ``OverloadedOperatorKind``). 1015*67e74705SXin Li 1016*67e74705SXin Li``CXXLiteralOperatorName`` 1017*67e74705SXin Li 1018*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++11 user defined literal operator. User defined 1019*67e74705SXin Li Literal operators are named according to the suffix they define, 1020*67e74705SXin Li e.g., "``_foo``" for "``operator "" _foo``". Use 1021*67e74705SXin Li ``N.getCXXLiteralIdentifier()`` to retrieve the corresponding 1022*67e74705SXin Li ``IdentifierInfo*`` pointing to the identifier. 1023*67e74705SXin Li 1024*67e74705SXin Li``CXXUsingDirective`` 1025*67e74705SXin Li 1026*67e74705SXin Li The name is a C++ using directive. Using directives are not really 1027*67e74705SXin Li NamedDecls, in that they all have the same name, but they are 1028*67e74705SXin Li implemented as such in order to store them in DeclContext 1029*67e74705SXin Li effectively. 1030*67e74705SXin Li 1031*67e74705SXin Li``DeclarationName``\ s are cheap to create, copy, and compare. They require 1032*67e74705SXin Lionly a single pointer's worth of storage in the common cases (identifiers, 1033*67e74705SXin Lizero- and one-argument Objective-C selectors) and use dense, uniqued storage 1034*67e74705SXin Lifor the other kinds of names. Two ``DeclarationName``\ s can be compared for 1035*67e74705SXin Liequality (``==``, ``!=``) using a simple bitwise comparison, can be ordered 1036*67e74705SXin Liwith ``<``, ``>``, ``<=``, and ``>=`` (which provide a lexicographical ordering 1037*67e74705SXin Lifor normal identifiers but an unspecified ordering for other kinds of names), 1038*67e74705SXin Liand can be placed into LLVM ``DenseMap``\ s and ``DenseSet``\ s. 1039*67e74705SXin Li 1040*67e74705SXin Li``DeclarationName`` instances can be created in different ways depending on 1041*67e74705SXin Liwhat kind of name the instance will store. Normal identifiers 1042*67e74705SXin Li(``IdentifierInfo`` pointers) and Objective-C selectors (``Selector``) can be 1043*67e74705SXin Liimplicitly converted to ``DeclarationNames``. Names for C++ constructors, 1044*67e74705SXin Lidestructors, conversion functions, and overloaded operators can be retrieved 1045*67e74705SXin Lifrom the ``DeclarationNameTable``, an instance of which is available as 1046*67e74705SXin Li``ASTContext::DeclarationNames``. The member functions 1047*67e74705SXin Li``getCXXConstructorName``, ``getCXXDestructorName``, 1048*67e74705SXin Li``getCXXConversionFunctionName``, and ``getCXXOperatorName``, respectively, 1049*67e74705SXin Lireturn ``DeclarationName`` instances for the four kinds of C++ special function 1050*67e74705SXin Linames. 1051*67e74705SXin Li 1052*67e74705SXin Li.. _DeclContext: 1053*67e74705SXin Li 1054*67e74705SXin LiDeclaration contexts 1055*67e74705SXin Li-------------------- 1056*67e74705SXin Li 1057*67e74705SXin LiEvery declaration in a program exists within some *declaration context*, such 1058*67e74705SXin Lias a translation unit, namespace, class, or function. Declaration contexts in 1059*67e74705SXin LiClang are represented by the ``DeclContext`` class, from which the various 1060*67e74705SXin Lideclaration-context AST nodes (``TranslationUnitDecl``, ``NamespaceDecl``, 1061*67e74705SXin Li``RecordDecl``, ``FunctionDecl``, etc.) will derive. The ``DeclContext`` class 1062*67e74705SXin Liprovides several facilities common to each declaration context: 1063*67e74705SXin Li 1064*67e74705SXin LiSource-centric vs. Semantics-centric View of Declarations 1065*67e74705SXin Li 1066*67e74705SXin Li ``DeclContext`` provides two views of the declarations stored within a 1067*67e74705SXin Li declaration context. The source-centric view accurately represents the 1068*67e74705SXin Li program source code as written, including multiple declarations of entities 1069*67e74705SXin Li where present (see the section :ref:`Redeclarations and Overloads 1070*67e74705SXin Li <Redeclarations>`), while the semantics-centric view represents the program 1071*67e74705SXin Li semantics. The two views are kept synchronized by semantic analysis while 1072*67e74705SXin Li the ASTs are being constructed. 1073*67e74705SXin Li 1074*67e74705SXin LiStorage of declarations within that context 1075*67e74705SXin Li 1076*67e74705SXin Li Every declaration context can contain some number of declarations. For 1077*67e74705SXin Li example, a C++ class (represented by ``RecordDecl``) contains various member 1078*67e74705SXin Li functions, fields, nested types, and so on. All of these declarations will 1079*67e74705SXin Li be stored within the ``DeclContext``, and one can iterate over the 1080*67e74705SXin Li declarations via [``DeclContext::decls_begin()``, 1081*67e74705SXin Li ``DeclContext::decls_end()``). This mechanism provides the source-centric 1082*67e74705SXin Li view of declarations in the context. 1083*67e74705SXin Li 1084*67e74705SXin LiLookup of declarations within that context 1085*67e74705SXin Li 1086*67e74705SXin Li The ``DeclContext`` structure provides efficient name lookup for names within 1087*67e74705SXin Li that declaration context. For example, if ``N`` is a namespace we can look 1088*67e74705SXin Li for the name ``N::f`` using ``DeclContext::lookup``. The lookup itself is 1089*67e74705SXin Li based on a lazily-constructed array (for declaration contexts with a small 1090*67e74705SXin Li number of declarations) or hash table (for declaration contexts with more 1091*67e74705SXin Li declarations). The lookup operation provides the semantics-centric view of 1092*67e74705SXin Li the declarations in the context. 1093*67e74705SXin Li 1094*67e74705SXin LiOwnership of declarations 1095*67e74705SXin Li 1096*67e74705SXin Li The ``DeclContext`` owns all of the declarations that were declared within 1097*67e74705SXin Li its declaration context, and is responsible for the management of their 1098*67e74705SXin Li memory as well as their (de-)serialization. 1099*67e74705SXin Li 1100*67e74705SXin LiAll declarations are stored within a declaration context, and one can query 1101*67e74705SXin Liinformation about the context in which each declaration lives. One can 1102*67e74705SXin Liretrieve the ``DeclContext`` that contains a particular ``Decl`` using 1103*67e74705SXin Li``Decl::getDeclContext``. However, see the section 1104*67e74705SXin Li:ref:`LexicalAndSemanticContexts` for more information about how to interpret 1105*67e74705SXin Lithis context information. 1106*67e74705SXin Li 1107*67e74705SXin Li.. _Redeclarations: 1108*67e74705SXin Li 1109*67e74705SXin LiRedeclarations and Overloads 1110*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1111*67e74705SXin Li 1112*67e74705SXin LiWithin a translation unit, it is common for an entity to be declared several 1113*67e74705SXin Litimes. For example, we might declare a function "``f``" and then later 1114*67e74705SXin Lire-declare it as part of an inlined definition: 1115*67e74705SXin Li 1116*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1117*67e74705SXin Li 1118*67e74705SXin Li void f(int x, int y, int z = 1); 1119*67e74705SXin Li 1120*67e74705SXin Li inline void f(int x, int y, int z) { /* ... */ } 1121*67e74705SXin Li 1122*67e74705SXin LiThe representation of "``f``" differs in the source-centric and 1123*67e74705SXin Lisemantics-centric views of a declaration context. In the source-centric view, 1124*67e74705SXin Liall redeclarations will be present, in the order they occurred in the source 1125*67e74705SXin Licode, making this view suitable for clients that wish to see the structure of 1126*67e74705SXin Lithe source code. In the semantics-centric view, only the most recent "``f``" 1127*67e74705SXin Liwill be found by the lookup, since it effectively replaces the first 1128*67e74705SXin Lideclaration of "``f``". 1129*67e74705SXin Li 1130*67e74705SXin LiIn the semantics-centric view, overloading of functions is represented 1131*67e74705SXin Liexplicitly. For example, given two declarations of a function "``g``" that are 1132*67e74705SXin Lioverloaded, e.g., 1133*67e74705SXin Li 1134*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1135*67e74705SXin Li 1136*67e74705SXin Li void g(); 1137*67e74705SXin Li void g(int); 1138*67e74705SXin Li 1139*67e74705SXin Lithe ``DeclContext::lookup`` operation will return a 1140*67e74705SXin Li``DeclContext::lookup_result`` that contains a range of iterators over 1141*67e74705SXin Lideclarations of "``g``". Clients that perform semantic analysis on a program 1142*67e74705SXin Lithat is not concerned with the actual source code will primarily use this 1143*67e74705SXin Lisemantics-centric view. 1144*67e74705SXin Li 1145*67e74705SXin Li.. _LexicalAndSemanticContexts: 1146*67e74705SXin Li 1147*67e74705SXin LiLexical and Semantic Contexts 1148*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1149*67e74705SXin Li 1150*67e74705SXin LiEach declaration has two potentially different declaration contexts: a 1151*67e74705SXin Li*lexical* context, which corresponds to the source-centric view of the 1152*67e74705SXin Lideclaration context, and a *semantic* context, which corresponds to the 1153*67e74705SXin Lisemantics-centric view. The lexical context is accessible via 1154*67e74705SXin Li``Decl::getLexicalDeclContext`` while the semantic context is accessible via 1155*67e74705SXin Li``Decl::getDeclContext``, both of which return ``DeclContext`` pointers. For 1156*67e74705SXin Limost declarations, the two contexts are identical. For example: 1157*67e74705SXin Li 1158*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1159*67e74705SXin Li 1160*67e74705SXin Li class X { 1161*67e74705SXin Li public: 1162*67e74705SXin Li void f(int x); 1163*67e74705SXin Li }; 1164*67e74705SXin Li 1165*67e74705SXin LiHere, the semantic and lexical contexts of ``X::f`` are the ``DeclContext`` 1166*67e74705SXin Liassociated with the class ``X`` (itself stored as a ``RecordDecl`` AST node). 1167*67e74705SXin LiHowever, we can now define ``X::f`` out-of-line: 1168*67e74705SXin Li 1169*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1170*67e74705SXin Li 1171*67e74705SXin Li void X::f(int x = 17) { /* ... */ } 1172*67e74705SXin Li 1173*67e74705SXin LiThis definition of "``f``" has different lexical and semantic contexts. The 1174*67e74705SXin Lilexical context corresponds to the declaration context in which the actual 1175*67e74705SXin Lideclaration occurred in the source code, e.g., the translation unit containing 1176*67e74705SXin Li``X``. Thus, this declaration of ``X::f`` can be found by traversing the 1177*67e74705SXin Lideclarations provided by [``decls_begin()``, ``decls_end()``) in the 1178*67e74705SXin Litranslation unit. 1179*67e74705SXin Li 1180*67e74705SXin LiThe semantic context of ``X::f`` corresponds to the class ``X``, since this 1181*67e74705SXin Limember function is (semantically) a member of ``X``. Lookup of the name ``f`` 1182*67e74705SXin Liinto the ``DeclContext`` associated with ``X`` will then return the definition 1183*67e74705SXin Liof ``X::f`` (including information about the default argument). 1184*67e74705SXin Li 1185*67e74705SXin LiTransparent Declaration Contexts 1186*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1187*67e74705SXin Li 1188*67e74705SXin LiIn C and C++, there are several contexts in which names that are logically 1189*67e74705SXin Lideclared inside another declaration will actually "leak" out into the enclosing 1190*67e74705SXin Liscope from the perspective of name lookup. The most obvious instance of this 1191*67e74705SXin Libehavior is in enumeration types, e.g., 1192*67e74705SXin Li 1193*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1194*67e74705SXin Li 1195*67e74705SXin Li enum Color { 1196*67e74705SXin Li Red, 1197*67e74705SXin Li Green, 1198*67e74705SXin Li Blue 1199*67e74705SXin Li }; 1200*67e74705SXin Li 1201*67e74705SXin LiHere, ``Color`` is an enumeration, which is a declaration context that contains 1202*67e74705SXin Lithe enumerators ``Red``, ``Green``, and ``Blue``. Thus, traversing the list of 1203*67e74705SXin Lideclarations contained in the enumeration ``Color`` will yield ``Red``, 1204*67e74705SXin Li``Green``, and ``Blue``. However, outside of the scope of ``Color`` one can 1205*67e74705SXin Liname the enumerator ``Red`` without qualifying the name, e.g., 1206*67e74705SXin Li 1207*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1208*67e74705SXin Li 1209*67e74705SXin Li Color c = Red; 1210*67e74705SXin Li 1211*67e74705SXin LiThere are other entities in C++ that provide similar behavior. For example, 1212*67e74705SXin Lilinkage specifications that use curly braces: 1213*67e74705SXin Li 1214*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1215*67e74705SXin Li 1216*67e74705SXin Li extern "C" { 1217*67e74705SXin Li void f(int); 1218*67e74705SXin Li void g(int); 1219*67e74705SXin Li } 1220*67e74705SXin Li // f and g are visible here 1221*67e74705SXin Li 1222*67e74705SXin LiFor source-level accuracy, we treat the linkage specification and enumeration 1223*67e74705SXin Litype as a declaration context in which its enclosed declarations ("``Red``", 1224*67e74705SXin Li"``Green``", and "``Blue``"; "``f``" and "``g``") are declared. However, these 1225*67e74705SXin Lideclarations are visible outside of the scope of the declaration context. 1226*67e74705SXin Li 1227*67e74705SXin LiThese language features (and several others, described below) have roughly the 1228*67e74705SXin Lisame set of requirements: declarations are declared within a particular lexical 1229*67e74705SXin Licontext, but the declarations are also found via name lookup in scopes 1230*67e74705SXin Lienclosing the declaration itself. This feature is implemented via 1231*67e74705SXin Li*transparent* declaration contexts (see 1232*67e74705SXin Li``DeclContext::isTransparentContext()``), whose declarations are visible in the 1233*67e74705SXin Linearest enclosing non-transparent declaration context. This means that the 1234*67e74705SXin Lilexical context of the declaration (e.g., an enumerator) will be the 1235*67e74705SXin Litransparent ``DeclContext`` itself, as will the semantic context, but the 1236*67e74705SXin Lideclaration will be visible in every outer context up to and including the 1237*67e74705SXin Lifirst non-transparent declaration context (since transparent declaration 1238*67e74705SXin Licontexts can be nested). 1239*67e74705SXin Li 1240*67e74705SXin LiThe transparent ``DeclContext``\ s are: 1241*67e74705SXin Li 1242*67e74705SXin Li* Enumerations (but not C++11 "scoped enumerations"): 1243*67e74705SXin Li 1244*67e74705SXin Li .. code-block:: c++ 1245*67e74705SXin Li 1246*67e74705SXin Li enum Color { 1247*67e74705SXin Li Red, 1248*67e74705SXin Li Green, 1249*67e74705SXin Li Blue 1250*67e74705SXin Li }; 1251*67e74705SXin Li // Red, Green, and Blue are in scope 1252*67e74705SXin Li 1253*67e74705SXin Li* C++ linkage specifications: 1254*67e74705SXin Li 1255*67e74705SXin Li .. code-block:: c++ 1256*67e74705SXin Li 1257*67e74705SXin Li extern "C" { 1258*67e74705SXin Li void f(int); 1259*67e74705SXin Li void g(int); 1260*67e74705SXin Li } 1261*67e74705SXin Li // f and g are in scope 1262*67e74705SXin Li 1263*67e74705SXin Li* Anonymous unions and structs: 1264*67e74705SXin Li 1265*67e74705SXin Li .. code-block:: c++ 1266*67e74705SXin Li 1267*67e74705SXin Li struct LookupTable { 1268*67e74705SXin Li bool IsVector; 1269*67e74705SXin Li union { 1270*67e74705SXin Li std::vector<Item> *Vector; 1271*67e74705SXin Li std::set<Item> *Set; 1272*67e74705SXin Li }; 1273*67e74705SXin Li }; 1274*67e74705SXin Li 1275*67e74705SXin Li LookupTable LT; 1276*67e74705SXin Li LT.Vector = 0; // Okay: finds Vector inside the unnamed union 1277*67e74705SXin Li 1278*67e74705SXin Li* C++11 inline namespaces: 1279*67e74705SXin Li 1280*67e74705SXin Li .. code-block:: c++ 1281*67e74705SXin Li 1282*67e74705SXin Li namespace mylib { 1283*67e74705SXin Li inline namespace debug { 1284*67e74705SXin Li class X; 1285*67e74705SXin Li } 1286*67e74705SXin Li } 1287*67e74705SXin Li mylib::X *xp; // okay: mylib::X refers to mylib::debug::X 1288*67e74705SXin Li 1289*67e74705SXin Li.. _MultiDeclContext: 1290*67e74705SXin Li 1291*67e74705SXin LiMultiply-Defined Declaration Contexts 1292*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1293*67e74705SXin Li 1294*67e74705SXin LiC++ namespaces have the interesting --- and, so far, unique --- property that 1295*67e74705SXin Lithe namespace can be defined multiple times, and the declarations provided by 1296*67e74705SXin Lieach namespace definition are effectively merged (from the semantic point of 1297*67e74705SXin Liview). For example, the following two code snippets are semantically 1298*67e74705SXin Liindistinguishable: 1299*67e74705SXin Li 1300*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1301*67e74705SXin Li 1302*67e74705SXin Li // Snippet #1: 1303*67e74705SXin Li namespace N { 1304*67e74705SXin Li void f(); 1305*67e74705SXin Li } 1306*67e74705SXin Li namespace N { 1307*67e74705SXin Li void f(int); 1308*67e74705SXin Li } 1309*67e74705SXin Li 1310*67e74705SXin Li // Snippet #2: 1311*67e74705SXin Li namespace N { 1312*67e74705SXin Li void f(); 1313*67e74705SXin Li void f(int); 1314*67e74705SXin Li } 1315*67e74705SXin Li 1316*67e74705SXin LiIn Clang's representation, the source-centric view of declaration contexts will 1317*67e74705SXin Liactually have two separate ``NamespaceDecl`` nodes in Snippet #1, each of which 1318*67e74705SXin Liis a declaration context that contains a single declaration of "``f``". 1319*67e74705SXin LiHowever, the semantics-centric view provided by name lookup into the namespace 1320*67e74705SXin Li``N`` for "``f``" will return a ``DeclContext::lookup_result`` that contains a 1321*67e74705SXin Lirange of iterators over declarations of "``f``". 1322*67e74705SXin Li 1323*67e74705SXin Li``DeclContext`` manages multiply-defined declaration contexts internally. The 1324*67e74705SXin Lifunction ``DeclContext::getPrimaryContext`` retrieves the "primary" context for 1325*67e74705SXin Lia given ``DeclContext`` instance, which is the ``DeclContext`` responsible for 1326*67e74705SXin Limaintaining the lookup table used for the semantics-centric view. Given a 1327*67e74705SXin LiDeclContext, one can obtain the set of declaration contexts that are semanticaly 1328*67e74705SXin Liconnected to this declaration context, in source order, including this context 1329*67e74705SXin Li(which will be the only result, for non-namespace contexts) via 1330*67e74705SXin Li``DeclContext::collectAllContexts``. Note that these functions are used 1331*67e74705SXin Liinternally within the lookup and insertion methods of the ``DeclContext``, so 1332*67e74705SXin Lithe vast majority of clients can ignore them. 1333*67e74705SXin Li 1334*67e74705SXin Li.. _CFG: 1335*67e74705SXin Li 1336*67e74705SXin LiThe ``CFG`` class 1337*67e74705SXin Li----------------- 1338*67e74705SXin Li 1339*67e74705SXin LiThe ``CFG`` class is designed to represent a source-level control-flow graph 1340*67e74705SXin Lifor a single statement (``Stmt*``). Typically instances of ``CFG`` are 1341*67e74705SXin Liconstructed for function bodies (usually an instance of ``CompoundStmt``), but 1342*67e74705SXin Lican also be instantiated to represent the control-flow of any class that 1343*67e74705SXin Lisubclasses ``Stmt``, which includes simple expressions. Control-flow graphs 1344*67e74705SXin Liare especially useful for performing `flow- or path-sensitive 1345*67e74705SXin Li<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_flow_analysis#Sensitivities>`_ program 1346*67e74705SXin Lianalyses on a given function. 1347*67e74705SXin Li 1348*67e74705SXin LiBasic Blocks 1349*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1350*67e74705SXin Li 1351*67e74705SXin LiConcretely, an instance of ``CFG`` is a collection of basic blocks. Each basic 1352*67e74705SXin Liblock is an instance of ``CFGBlock``, which simply contains an ordered sequence 1353*67e74705SXin Liof ``Stmt*`` (each referring to statements in the AST). The ordering of 1354*67e74705SXin Listatements within a block indicates unconditional flow of control from one 1355*67e74705SXin Listatement to the next. :ref:`Conditional control-flow 1356*67e74705SXin Li<ConditionalControlFlow>` is represented using edges between basic blocks. The 1357*67e74705SXin Listatements within a given ``CFGBlock`` can be traversed using the 1358*67e74705SXin Li``CFGBlock::*iterator`` interface. 1359*67e74705SXin Li 1360*67e74705SXin LiA ``CFG`` object owns the instances of ``CFGBlock`` within the control-flow 1361*67e74705SXin Ligraph it represents. Each ``CFGBlock`` within a CFG is also uniquely numbered 1362*67e74705SXin Li(accessible via ``CFGBlock::getBlockID()``). Currently the number is based on 1363*67e74705SXin Lithe ordering the blocks were created, but no assumptions should be made on how 1364*67e74705SXin Li``CFGBlocks`` are numbered other than their numbers are unique and that they 1365*67e74705SXin Liare numbered from 0..N-1 (where N is the number of basic blocks in the CFG). 1366*67e74705SXin Li 1367*67e74705SXin LiEntry and Exit Blocks 1368*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1369*67e74705SXin Li 1370*67e74705SXin LiEach instance of ``CFG`` contains two special blocks: an *entry* block 1371*67e74705SXin Li(accessible via ``CFG::getEntry()``), which has no incoming edges, and an 1372*67e74705SXin Li*exit* block (accessible via ``CFG::getExit()``), which has no outgoing edges. 1373*67e74705SXin LiNeither block contains any statements, and they serve the role of providing a 1374*67e74705SXin Liclear entrance and exit for a body of code such as a function body. The 1375*67e74705SXin Lipresence of these empty blocks greatly simplifies the implementation of many 1376*67e74705SXin Lianalyses built on top of CFGs. 1377*67e74705SXin Li 1378*67e74705SXin Li.. _ConditionalControlFlow: 1379*67e74705SXin Li 1380*67e74705SXin LiConditional Control-Flow 1381*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1382*67e74705SXin Li 1383*67e74705SXin LiConditional control-flow (such as those induced by if-statements and loops) is 1384*67e74705SXin Lirepresented as edges between ``CFGBlocks``. Because different C language 1385*67e74705SXin Liconstructs can induce control-flow, each ``CFGBlock`` also records an extra 1386*67e74705SXin Li``Stmt*`` that represents the *terminator* of the block. A terminator is 1387*67e74705SXin Lisimply the statement that caused the control-flow, and is used to identify the 1388*67e74705SXin Linature of the conditional control-flow between blocks. For example, in the 1389*67e74705SXin Licase of an if-statement, the terminator refers to the ``IfStmt`` object in the 1390*67e74705SXin LiAST that represented the given branch. 1391*67e74705SXin Li 1392*67e74705SXin LiTo illustrate, consider the following code example: 1393*67e74705SXin Li 1394*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1395*67e74705SXin Li 1396*67e74705SXin Li int foo(int x) { 1397*67e74705SXin Li x = x + 1; 1398*67e74705SXin Li if (x > 2) 1399*67e74705SXin Li x++; 1400*67e74705SXin Li else { 1401*67e74705SXin Li x += 2; 1402*67e74705SXin Li x *= 2; 1403*67e74705SXin Li } 1404*67e74705SXin Li 1405*67e74705SXin Li return x; 1406*67e74705SXin Li } 1407*67e74705SXin Li 1408*67e74705SXin LiAfter invoking the parser+semantic analyzer on this code fragment, the AST of 1409*67e74705SXin Lithe body of ``foo`` is referenced by a single ``Stmt*``. We can then construct 1410*67e74705SXin Lian instance of ``CFG`` representing the control-flow graph of this function 1411*67e74705SXin Libody by single call to a static class method: 1412*67e74705SXin Li 1413*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: c++ 1414*67e74705SXin Li 1415*67e74705SXin Li Stmt *FooBody = ... 1416*67e74705SXin Li std::unique_ptr<CFG> FooCFG = CFG::buildCFG(FooBody); 1417*67e74705SXin Li 1418*67e74705SXin LiAlong with providing an interface to iterate over its ``CFGBlocks``, the 1419*67e74705SXin Li``CFG`` class also provides methods that are useful for debugging and 1420*67e74705SXin Livisualizing CFGs. For example, the method ``CFG::dump()`` dumps a 1421*67e74705SXin Lipretty-printed version of the CFG to standard error. This is especially useful 1422*67e74705SXin Liwhen one is using a debugger such as gdb. For example, here is the output of 1423*67e74705SXin Li``FooCFG->dump()``: 1424*67e74705SXin Li 1425*67e74705SXin Li.. code-block:: text 1426*67e74705SXin Li 1427*67e74705SXin Li [ B5 (ENTRY) ] 1428*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (0): 1429*67e74705SXin Li Successors (1): B4 1430*67e74705SXin Li 1431*67e74705SXin Li [ B4 ] 1432*67e74705SXin Li 1: x = x + 1 1433*67e74705SXin Li 2: (x > 2) 1434*67e74705SXin Li T: if [B4.2] 1435*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (1): B5 1436*67e74705SXin Li Successors (2): B3 B2 1437*67e74705SXin Li 1438*67e74705SXin Li [ B3 ] 1439*67e74705SXin Li 1: x++ 1440*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (1): B4 1441*67e74705SXin Li Successors (1): B1 1442*67e74705SXin Li 1443*67e74705SXin Li [ B2 ] 1444*67e74705SXin Li 1: x += 2 1445*67e74705SXin Li 2: x *= 2 1446*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (1): B4 1447*67e74705SXin Li Successors (1): B1 1448*67e74705SXin Li 1449*67e74705SXin Li [ B1 ] 1450*67e74705SXin Li 1: return x; 1451*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (2): B2 B3 1452*67e74705SXin Li Successors (1): B0 1453*67e74705SXin Li 1454*67e74705SXin Li [ B0 (EXIT) ] 1455*67e74705SXin Li Predecessors (1): B1 1456*67e74705SXin Li Successors (0): 1457*67e74705SXin Li 1458*67e74705SXin LiFor each block, the pretty-printed output displays for each block the number of 1459*67e74705SXin Li*predecessor* blocks (blocks that have outgoing control-flow to the given 1460*67e74705SXin Liblock) and *successor* blocks (blocks that have control-flow that have incoming 1461*67e74705SXin Licontrol-flow from the given block). We can also clearly see the special entry 1462*67e74705SXin Liand exit blocks at the beginning and end of the pretty-printed output. For the 1463*67e74705SXin Lientry block (block B5), the number of predecessor blocks is 0, while for the 1464*67e74705SXin Liexit block (block B0) the number of successor blocks is 0. 1465*67e74705SXin Li 1466*67e74705SXin LiThe most interesting block here is B4, whose outgoing control-flow represents 1467*67e74705SXin Lithe branching caused by the sole if-statement in ``foo``. Of particular 1468*67e74705SXin Liinterest is the second statement in the block, ``(x > 2)``, and the terminator, 1469*67e74705SXin Liprinted as ``if [B4.2]``. The second statement represents the evaluation of 1470*67e74705SXin Lithe condition of the if-statement, which occurs before the actual branching of 1471*67e74705SXin Licontrol-flow. Within the ``CFGBlock`` for B4, the ``Stmt*`` for the second 1472*67e74705SXin Listatement refers to the actual expression in the AST for ``(x > 2)``. Thus 1473*67e74705SXin Lipointers to subclasses of ``Expr`` can appear in the list of statements in a 1474*67e74705SXin Liblock, and not just subclasses of ``Stmt`` that refer to proper C statements. 1475*67e74705SXin Li 1476*67e74705SXin LiThe terminator of block B4 is a pointer to the ``IfStmt`` object in the AST. 1477*67e74705SXin LiThe pretty-printer outputs ``if [B4.2]`` because the condition expression of 1478*67e74705SXin Lithe if-statement has an actual place in the basic block, and thus the 1479*67e74705SXin Literminator is essentially *referring* to the expression that is the second 1480*67e74705SXin Listatement of block B4 (i.e., B4.2). In this manner, conditions for 1481*67e74705SXin Licontrol-flow (which also includes conditions for loops and switch statements) 1482*67e74705SXin Liare hoisted into the actual basic block. 1483*67e74705SXin Li 1484*67e74705SXin Li.. Implicit Control-Flow 1485*67e74705SXin Li.. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1486*67e74705SXin Li 1487*67e74705SXin Li.. A key design principle of the ``CFG`` class was to not require any 1488*67e74705SXin Li.. transformations to the AST in order to represent control-flow. Thus the 1489*67e74705SXin Li.. ``CFG`` does not perform any "lowering" of the statements in an AST: loops 1490*67e74705SXin Li.. are not transformed into guarded gotos, short-circuit operations are not 1491*67e74705SXin Li.. converted to a set of if-statements, and so on. 1492*67e74705SXin Li 1493*67e74705SXin LiConstant Folding in the Clang AST 1494*67e74705SXin Li--------------------------------- 1495*67e74705SXin Li 1496*67e74705SXin LiThere are several places where constants and constant folding matter a lot to 1497*67e74705SXin Lithe Clang front-end. First, in general, we prefer the AST to retain the source 1498*67e74705SXin Licode as close to how the user wrote it as possible. This means that if they 1499*67e74705SXin Liwrote "``5+4``", we want to keep the addition and two constants in the AST, we 1500*67e74705SXin Lidon't want to fold to "``9``". This means that constant folding in various 1501*67e74705SXin Liways turns into a tree walk that needs to handle the various cases. 1502*67e74705SXin Li 1503*67e74705SXin LiHowever, there are places in both C and C++ that require constants to be 1504*67e74705SXin Lifolded. For example, the C standard defines what an "integer constant 1505*67e74705SXin Liexpression" (i-c-e) is with very precise and specific requirements. The 1506*67e74705SXin Lilanguage then requires i-c-e's in a lot of places (for example, the size of a 1507*67e74705SXin Libitfield, the value for a case statement, etc). For these, we have to be able 1508*67e74705SXin Lito constant fold the constants, to do semantic checks (e.g., verify bitfield 1509*67e74705SXin Lisize is non-negative and that case statements aren't duplicated). We aim for 1510*67e74705SXin LiClang to be very pedantic about this, diagnosing cases when the code does not 1511*67e74705SXin Liuse an i-c-e where one is required, but accepting the code unless running with 1512*67e74705SXin Li``-pedantic-errors``. 1513*67e74705SXin Li 1514*67e74705SXin LiThings get a little bit more tricky when it comes to compatibility with 1515*67e74705SXin Lireal-world source code. Specifically, GCC has historically accepted a huge 1516*67e74705SXin Lisuperset of expressions as i-c-e's, and a lot of real world code depends on 1517*67e74705SXin Lithis unfortuate accident of history (including, e.g., the glibc system 1518*67e74705SXin Liheaders). GCC accepts anything its "fold" optimizer is capable of reducing to 1519*67e74705SXin Lian integer constant, which means that the definition of what it accepts changes 1520*67e74705SXin Lias its optimizer does. One example is that GCC accepts things like "``case 1521*67e74705SXin LiX-X:``" even when ``X`` is a variable, because it can fold this to 0. 1522*67e74705SXin Li 1523*67e74705SXin LiAnother issue are how constants interact with the extensions we support, such 1524*67e74705SXin Lias ``__builtin_constant_p``, ``__builtin_inf``, ``__extension__`` and many 1525*67e74705SXin Liothers. C99 obviously does not specify the semantics of any of these 1526*67e74705SXin Liextensions, and the definition of i-c-e does not include them. However, these 1527*67e74705SXin Liextensions are often used in real code, and we have to have a way to reason 1528*67e74705SXin Liabout them. 1529*67e74705SXin Li 1530*67e74705SXin LiFinally, this is not just a problem for semantic analysis. The code generator 1531*67e74705SXin Liand other clients have to be able to fold constants (e.g., to initialize global 1532*67e74705SXin Livariables) and has to handle a superset of what C99 allows. Further, these 1533*67e74705SXin Liclients can benefit from extended information. For example, we know that 1534*67e74705SXin Li"``foo() || 1``" always evaluates to ``true``, but we can't replace the 1535*67e74705SXin Liexpression with ``true`` because it has side effects. 1536*67e74705SXin Li 1537*67e74705SXin LiImplementation Approach 1538*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1539*67e74705SXin Li 1540*67e74705SXin LiAfter trying several different approaches, we've finally converged on a design 1541*67e74705SXin Li(Note, at the time of this writing, not all of this has been implemented, 1542*67e74705SXin Liconsider this a design goal!). Our basic approach is to define a single 1543*67e74705SXin Lirecursive method evaluation method (``Expr::Evaluate``), which is implemented 1544*67e74705SXin Liin ``AST/ExprConstant.cpp``. Given an expression with "scalar" type (integer, 1545*67e74705SXin Lifp, complex, or pointer) this method returns the following information: 1546*67e74705SXin Li 1547*67e74705SXin Li* Whether the expression is an integer constant expression, a general constant 1548*67e74705SXin Li that was folded but has no side effects, a general constant that was folded 1549*67e74705SXin Li but that does have side effects, or an uncomputable/unfoldable value. 1550*67e74705SXin Li* If the expression was computable in any way, this method returns the 1551*67e74705SXin Li ``APValue`` for the result of the expression. 1552*67e74705SXin Li* If the expression is not evaluatable at all, this method returns information 1553*67e74705SXin Li on one of the problems with the expression. This includes a 1554*67e74705SXin Li ``SourceLocation`` for where the problem is, and a diagnostic ID that explains 1555*67e74705SXin Li the problem. The diagnostic should have ``ERROR`` type. 1556*67e74705SXin Li* If the expression is not an integer constant expression, this method returns 1557*67e74705SXin Li information on one of the problems with the expression. This includes a 1558*67e74705SXin Li ``SourceLocation`` for where the problem is, and a diagnostic ID that 1559*67e74705SXin Li explains the problem. The diagnostic should have ``EXTENSION`` type. 1560*67e74705SXin Li 1561*67e74705SXin LiThis information gives various clients the flexibility that they want, and we 1562*67e74705SXin Liwill eventually have some helper methods for various extensions. For example, 1563*67e74705SXin Li``Sema`` should have a ``Sema::VerifyIntegerConstantExpression`` method, which 1564*67e74705SXin Licalls ``Evaluate`` on the expression. If the expression is not foldable, the 1565*67e74705SXin Lierror is emitted, and it would return ``true``. If the expression is not an 1566*67e74705SXin Lii-c-e, the ``EXTENSION`` diagnostic is emitted. Finally it would return 1567*67e74705SXin Li``false`` to indicate that the AST is OK. 1568*67e74705SXin Li 1569*67e74705SXin LiOther clients can use the information in other ways, for example, codegen can 1570*67e74705SXin Lijust use expressions that are foldable in any way. 1571*67e74705SXin Li 1572*67e74705SXin LiExtensions 1573*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^ 1574*67e74705SXin Li 1575*67e74705SXin LiThis section describes how some of the various extensions Clang supports 1576*67e74705SXin Liinteracts with constant evaluation: 1577*67e74705SXin Li 1578*67e74705SXin Li* ``__extension__``: The expression form of this extension causes any 1579*67e74705SXin Li evaluatable subexpression to be accepted as an integer constant expression. 1580*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_constant_p``: This returns true (as an integer constant 1581*67e74705SXin Li expression) if the operand evaluates to either a numeric value (that is, not 1582*67e74705SXin Li a pointer cast to integral type) of integral, enumeration, floating or 1583*67e74705SXin Li complex type, or if it evaluates to the address of the first character of a 1584*67e74705SXin Li string literal (possibly cast to some other type). As a special case, if 1585*67e74705SXin Li ``__builtin_constant_p`` is the (potentially parenthesized) condition of a 1586*67e74705SXin Li conditional operator expression ("``?:``"), only the true side of the 1587*67e74705SXin Li conditional operator is considered, and it is evaluated with full constant 1588*67e74705SXin Li folding. 1589*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_choose_expr``: The condition is required to be an integer 1590*67e74705SXin Li constant expression, but we accept any constant as an "extension of an 1591*67e74705SXin Li extension". This only evaluates one operand depending on which way the 1592*67e74705SXin Li condition evaluates. 1593*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_classify_type``: This always returns an integer constant 1594*67e74705SXin Li expression. 1595*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_inf, nan, ...``: These are treated just like a floating-point 1596*67e74705SXin Li literal. 1597*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_abs, copysign, ...``: These are constant folded as general 1598*67e74705SXin Li constant expressions. 1599*67e74705SXin Li* ``__builtin_strlen`` and ``strlen``: These are constant folded as integer 1600*67e74705SXin Li constant expressions if the argument is a string literal. 1601*67e74705SXin Li 1602*67e74705SXin Li.. _Sema: 1603*67e74705SXin Li 1604*67e74705SXin LiThe Sema Library 1605*67e74705SXin Li================ 1606*67e74705SXin Li 1607*67e74705SXin LiThis library is called by the :ref:`Parser library <Parser>` during parsing to 1608*67e74705SXin Lido semantic analysis of the input. For valid programs, Sema builds an AST for 1609*67e74705SXin Liparsed constructs. 1610*67e74705SXin Li 1611*67e74705SXin Li.. _CodeGen: 1612*67e74705SXin Li 1613*67e74705SXin LiThe CodeGen Library 1614*67e74705SXin Li=================== 1615*67e74705SXin Li 1616*67e74705SXin LiCodeGen takes an :ref:`AST <AST>` as input and produces `LLVM IR code 1617*67e74705SXin Li<//llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html>`_ from it. 1618*67e74705SXin Li 1619*67e74705SXin LiHow to change Clang 1620*67e74705SXin Li=================== 1621*67e74705SXin Li 1622*67e74705SXin LiHow to add an attribute 1623*67e74705SXin Li----------------------- 1624*67e74705SXin LiAttributes are a form of metadata that can be attached to a program construct, 1625*67e74705SXin Liallowing the programmer to pass semantic information along to the compiler for 1626*67e74705SXin Livarious uses. For example, attributes may be used to alter the code generation 1627*67e74705SXin Lifor a program construct, or to provide extra semantic information for static 1628*67e74705SXin Lianalysis. This document explains how to add a custom attribute to Clang. 1629*67e74705SXin LiDocumentation on existing attributes can be found `here 1630*67e74705SXin Li<//clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html>`_. 1631*67e74705SXin Li 1632*67e74705SXin LiAttribute Basics 1633*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1634*67e74705SXin LiAttributes in Clang are handled in three stages: parsing into a parsed attribute 1635*67e74705SXin Lirepresentation, conversion from a parsed attribute into a semantic attribute, 1636*67e74705SXin Liand then the semantic handling of the attribute. 1637*67e74705SXin Li 1638*67e74705SXin LiParsing of the attribute is determined by the various syntactic forms attributes 1639*67e74705SXin Lican take, such as GNU, C++11, and Microsoft style attributes, as well as other 1640*67e74705SXin Liinformation provided by the table definition of the attribute. Ultimately, the 1641*67e74705SXin Liparsed representation of an attribute object is an ``AttributeList`` object. 1642*67e74705SXin LiThese parsed attributes chain together as a list of parsed attributes attached 1643*67e74705SXin Lito a declarator or declaration specifier. The parsing of attributes is handled 1644*67e74705SXin Liautomatically by Clang, except for attributes spelled as keywords. When 1645*67e74705SXin Liimplementing a keyword attribute, the parsing of the keyword and creation of the 1646*67e74705SXin Li``AttributeList`` object must be done manually. 1647*67e74705SXin Li 1648*67e74705SXin LiEventually, ``Sema::ProcessDeclAttributeList()`` is called with a ``Decl`` and 1649*67e74705SXin Lian ``AttributeList``, at which point the parsed attribute can be transformed 1650*67e74705SXin Liinto a semantic attribute. The process by which a parsed attribute is converted 1651*67e74705SXin Liinto a semantic attribute depends on the attribute definition and semantic 1652*67e74705SXin Lirequirements of the attribute. The end result, however, is that the semantic 1653*67e74705SXin Liattribute object is attached to the ``Decl`` object, and can be obtained by a 1654*67e74705SXin Licall to ``Decl::getAttr<T>()``. 1655*67e74705SXin Li 1656*67e74705SXin LiThe structure of the semantic attribute is also governed by the attribute 1657*67e74705SXin Lidefinition given in Attr.td. This definition is used to automatically generate 1658*67e74705SXin Lifunctionality used for the implementation of the attribute, such as a class 1659*67e74705SXin Liderived from ``clang::Attr``, information for the parser to use, automated 1660*67e74705SXin Lisemantic checking for some attributes, etc. 1661*67e74705SXin Li 1662*67e74705SXin Li 1663*67e74705SXin Li``include/clang/Basic/Attr.td`` 1664*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1665*67e74705SXin LiThe first step to adding a new attribute to Clang is to add its definition to 1666*67e74705SXin Li`include/clang/Basic/Attr.td 1667*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td?view=markup>`_. 1668*67e74705SXin LiThis tablegen definition must derive from the ``Attr`` (tablegen, not 1669*67e74705SXin Lisemantic) type, or one of its derivatives. Most attributes will derive from the 1670*67e74705SXin Li``InheritableAttr`` type, which specifies that the attribute can be inherited by 1671*67e74705SXin Lilater redeclarations of the ``Decl`` it is associated with. 1672*67e74705SXin Li``InheritableParamAttr`` is similar to ``InheritableAttr``, except that the 1673*67e74705SXin Liattribute is written on a parameter instead of a declaration. If the attribute 1674*67e74705SXin Liis intended to apply to a type instead of a declaration, such an attribute 1675*67e74705SXin Lishould derive from ``TypeAttr``, and will generally not be given an AST 1676*67e74705SXin Lirepresentation. (Note that this document does not cover the creation of type 1677*67e74705SXin Liattributes.) An attribute that inherits from ``IgnoredAttr`` is parsed, but will 1678*67e74705SXin Ligenerate an ignored attribute diagnostic when used, which may be useful when an 1679*67e74705SXin Liattribute is supported by another vendor but not supported by clang. 1680*67e74705SXin Li 1681*67e74705SXin LiThe definition will specify several key pieces of information, such as the 1682*67e74705SXin Lisemantic name of the attribute, the spellings the attribute supports, the 1683*67e74705SXin Liarguments the attribute expects, and more. Most members of the ``Attr`` tablegen 1684*67e74705SXin Litype do not require definitions in the derived definition as the default 1685*67e74705SXin Lisuffice. However, every attribute must specify at least a spelling list, a 1686*67e74705SXin Lisubject list, and a documentation list. 1687*67e74705SXin Li 1688*67e74705SXin LiSpellings 1689*67e74705SXin Li~~~~~~~~~ 1690*67e74705SXin LiAll attributes are required to specify a spelling list that denotes the ways in 1691*67e74705SXin Liwhich the attribute can be spelled. For instance, a single semantic attribute 1692*67e74705SXin Limay have a keyword spelling, as well as a C++11 spelling and a GNU spelling. An 1693*67e74705SXin Liempty spelling list is also permissible and may be useful for attributes which 1694*67e74705SXin Liare created implicitly. The following spellings are accepted: 1695*67e74705SXin Li 1696*67e74705SXin Li ============ ================================================================ 1697*67e74705SXin Li Spelling Description 1698*67e74705SXin Li ============ ================================================================ 1699*67e74705SXin Li ``GNU`` Spelled with a GNU-style ``__attribute__((attr))`` syntax and 1700*67e74705SXin Li placement. 1701*67e74705SXin Li ``CXX11`` Spelled with a C++-style ``[[attr]]`` syntax. If the attribute 1702*67e74705SXin Li is meant to be used by Clang, it should set the namespace to 1703*67e74705SXin Li ``"clang"``. 1704*67e74705SXin Li ``Declspec`` Spelled with a Microsoft-style ``__declspec(attr)`` syntax. 1705*67e74705SXin Li ``Keyword`` The attribute is spelled as a keyword, and required custom 1706*67e74705SXin Li parsing. 1707*67e74705SXin Li ``GCC`` Specifies two spellings: the first is a GNU-style spelling, and 1708*67e74705SXin Li the second is a C++-style spelling with the ``gnu`` namespace. 1709*67e74705SXin Li Attributes should only specify this spelling for attributes 1710*67e74705SXin Li supported by GCC. 1711*67e74705SXin Li ``Pragma`` The attribute is spelled as a ``#pragma``, and requires custom 1712*67e74705SXin Li processing within the preprocessor. If the attribute is meant to 1713*67e74705SXin Li be used by Clang, it should set the namespace to ``"clang"``. 1714*67e74705SXin Li Note that this spelling is not used for declaration attributes. 1715*67e74705SXin Li ============ ================================================================ 1716*67e74705SXin Li 1717*67e74705SXin LiSubjects 1718*67e74705SXin Li~~~~~~~~ 1719*67e74705SXin LiAttributes appertain to one or more ``Decl`` subjects. If the attribute attempts 1720*67e74705SXin Lito attach to a subject that is not in the subject list, a diagnostic is issued 1721*67e74705SXin Liautomatically. Whether the diagnostic is a warning or an error depends on how 1722*67e74705SXin Lithe attribute's ``SubjectList`` is defined, but the default behavior is to warn. 1723*67e74705SXin LiThe diagnostics displayed to the user are automatically determined based on the 1724*67e74705SXin Lisubjects in the list, but a custom diagnostic parameter can also be specified in 1725*67e74705SXin Lithe ``SubjectList``. The diagnostics generated for subject list violations are 1726*67e74705SXin Lieither ``diag::warn_attribute_wrong_decl_type`` or 1727*67e74705SXin Li``diag::err_attribute_wrong_decl_type``, and the parameter enumeration is found 1728*67e74705SXin Liin `include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h 1729*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/AttributeList.h?view=markup>`_ 1730*67e74705SXin LiIf a previously unused Decl node is added to the ``SubjectList``, the logic used 1731*67e74705SXin Lito automatically determine the diagnostic parameter in `utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp 1732*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp?view=markup>`_ 1733*67e74705SXin Limay need to be updated. 1734*67e74705SXin Li 1735*67e74705SXin LiBy default, all subjects in the SubjectList must either be a Decl node defined 1736*67e74705SXin Liin ``DeclNodes.td``, or a statement node defined in ``StmtNodes.td``. However, 1737*67e74705SXin Limore complex subjects can be created by creating a ``SubsetSubject`` object. 1738*67e74705SXin LiEach such object has a base subject which it appertains to (which must be a 1739*67e74705SXin LiDecl or Stmt node, and not a SubsetSubject node), and some custom code which is 1740*67e74705SXin Licalled when determining whether an attribute appertains to the subject. For 1741*67e74705SXin Liinstance, a ``NonBitField`` SubsetSubject appertains to a ``FieldDecl``, and 1742*67e74705SXin Litests whether the given FieldDecl is a bit field. When a SubsetSubject is 1743*67e74705SXin Lispecified in a SubjectList, a custom diagnostic parameter must also be provided. 1744*67e74705SXin Li 1745*67e74705SXin LiDiagnostic checking for attribute subject lists is automated except when 1746*67e74705SXin Li``HasCustomParsing`` is set to ``1``. 1747*67e74705SXin Li 1748*67e74705SXin LiDocumentation 1749*67e74705SXin Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1750*67e74705SXin LiAll attributes must have some form of documentation associated with them. 1751*67e74705SXin LiDocumentation is table generated on the public web server by a server-side 1752*67e74705SXin Liprocess that runs daily. Generally, the documentation for an attribute is a 1753*67e74705SXin Listand-alone definition in `include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td 1754*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/AttdDocs.td?view=markup>`_ 1755*67e74705SXin Lithat is named after the attribute being documented. 1756*67e74705SXin Li 1757*67e74705SXin LiIf the attribute is not for public consumption, or is an implicitly-created 1758*67e74705SXin Liattribute that has no visible spelling, the documentation list can specify the 1759*67e74705SXin Li``Undocumented`` object. Otherwise, the attribute should have its documentation 1760*67e74705SXin Liadded to AttrDocs.td. 1761*67e74705SXin Li 1762*67e74705SXin LiDocumentation derives from the ``Documentation`` tablegen type. All derived 1763*67e74705SXin Litypes must specify a documentation category and the actual documentation itself. 1764*67e74705SXin LiAdditionally, it can specify a custom heading for the attribute, though a 1765*67e74705SXin Lidefault heading will be chosen when possible. 1766*67e74705SXin Li 1767*67e74705SXin LiThere are four predefined documentation categories: ``DocCatFunction`` for 1768*67e74705SXin Liattributes that appertain to function-like subjects, ``DocCatVariable`` for 1769*67e74705SXin Liattributes that appertain to variable-like subjects, ``DocCatType`` for type 1770*67e74705SXin Liattributes, and ``DocCatStmt`` for statement attributes. A custom documentation 1771*67e74705SXin Licategory should be used for groups of attributes with similar functionality. 1772*67e74705SXin LiCustom categories are good for providing overview information for the attributes 1773*67e74705SXin Ligrouped under it. For instance, the consumed annotation attributes define a 1774*67e74705SXin Licustom category, ``DocCatConsumed``, that explains what consumed annotations are 1775*67e74705SXin Liat a high level. 1776*67e74705SXin Li 1777*67e74705SXin LiDocumentation content (whether it is for an attribute or a category) is written 1778*67e74705SXin Liusing reStructuredText (RST) syntax. 1779*67e74705SXin Li 1780*67e74705SXin LiAfter writing the documentation for the attribute, it should be locally tested 1781*67e74705SXin Lito ensure that there are no issues generating the documentation on the server. 1782*67e74705SXin LiLocal testing requires a fresh build of clang-tblgen. To generate the attribute 1783*67e74705SXin Lidocumentation, execute the following command:: 1784*67e74705SXin Li 1785*67e74705SXin Li clang-tblgen -gen-attr-docs -I /path/to/clang/include /path/to/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td -o /path/to/clang/docs/AttributeReference.rst 1786*67e74705SXin Li 1787*67e74705SXin LiWhen testing locally, *do not* commit changes to ``AttributeReference.rst``. 1788*67e74705SXin LiThis file is generated by the server automatically, and any changes made to this 1789*67e74705SXin Lifile will be overwritten. 1790*67e74705SXin Li 1791*67e74705SXin LiArguments 1792*67e74705SXin Li~~~~~~~~~ 1793*67e74705SXin LiAttributes may optionally specify a list of arguments that can be passed to the 1794*67e74705SXin Liattribute. Attribute arguments specify both the parsed form and the semantic 1795*67e74705SXin Liform of the attribute. For example, if ``Args`` is 1796*67e74705SXin Li``[StringArgument<"Arg1">, IntArgument<"Arg2">]`` then 1797*67e74705SXin Li``__attribute__((myattribute("Hello", 3)))`` will be a valid use; it requires 1798*67e74705SXin Litwo arguments while parsing, and the Attr subclass' constructor for the 1799*67e74705SXin Lisemantic attribute will require a string and integer argument. 1800*67e74705SXin Li 1801*67e74705SXin LiAll arguments have a name and a flag that specifies whether the argument is 1802*67e74705SXin Lioptional. The associated C++ type of the argument is determined by the argument 1803*67e74705SXin Lidefinition type. If the existing argument types are insufficient, new types can 1804*67e74705SXin Libe created, but it requires modifying `utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp 1805*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp?view=markup>`_ 1806*67e74705SXin Lito properly support the type. 1807*67e74705SXin Li 1808*67e74705SXin LiOther Properties 1809*67e74705SXin Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1810*67e74705SXin LiThe ``Attr`` definition has other members which control the behavior of the 1811*67e74705SXin Liattribute. Many of them are special-purpose and beyond the scope of this 1812*67e74705SXin Lidocument, however a few deserve mention. 1813*67e74705SXin Li 1814*67e74705SXin LiIf the parsed form of the attribute is more complex, or differs from the 1815*67e74705SXin Lisemantic form, the ``HasCustomParsing`` bit can be set to ``1`` for the class, 1816*67e74705SXin Liand the parsing code in `Parser::ParseGNUAttributeArgs() 1817*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp?view=markup>`_ 1818*67e74705SXin Lican be updated for the special case. Note that this only applies to arguments 1819*67e74705SXin Liwith a GNU spelling -- attributes with a __declspec spelling currently ignore 1820*67e74705SXin Lithis flag and are handled by ``Parser::ParseMicrosoftDeclSpec``. 1821*67e74705SXin Li 1822*67e74705SXin LiNote that setting this member to 1 will opt out of common attribute semantic 1823*67e74705SXin Lihandling, requiring extra implementation efforts to ensure the attribute 1824*67e74705SXin Liappertains to the appropriate subject, etc. 1825*67e74705SXin Li 1826*67e74705SXin LiIf the attribute should not be propagated from from a template declaration to an 1827*67e74705SXin Liinstantiation of the template, set the ``Clone`` member to 0. By default, all 1828*67e74705SXin Liattributes will be cloned to template instantiations. 1829*67e74705SXin Li 1830*67e74705SXin LiAttributes that do not require an AST node should set the ``ASTNode`` field to 1831*67e74705SXin Li``0`` to avoid polluting the AST. Note that anything inheriting from 1832*67e74705SXin Li``TypeAttr`` or ``IgnoredAttr`` automatically do not generate an AST node. All 1833*67e74705SXin Liother attributes generate an AST node by default. The AST node is the semantic 1834*67e74705SXin Lirepresentation of the attribute. 1835*67e74705SXin Li 1836*67e74705SXin LiThe ``LangOpts`` field specifies a list of language options required by the 1837*67e74705SXin Liattribute. For instance, all of the CUDA-specific attributes specify ``[CUDA]`` 1838*67e74705SXin Lifor the ``LangOpts`` field, and when the CUDA language option is not enabled, an 1839*67e74705SXin Li"attribute ignored" warning diagnostic is emitted. Since language options are 1840*67e74705SXin Linot table generated nodes, new language options must be created manually and 1841*67e74705SXin Lishould specify the spelling used by ``LangOptions`` class. 1842*67e74705SXin Li 1843*67e74705SXin LiCustom accessors can be generated for an attribute based on the spelling list 1844*67e74705SXin Lifor that attribute. For instance, if an attribute has two different spellings: 1845*67e74705SXin Li'Foo' and 'Bar', accessors can be created: 1846*67e74705SXin Li``[Accessor<"isFoo", [GNU<"Foo">]>, Accessor<"isBar", [GNU<"Bar">]>]`` 1847*67e74705SXin LiThese accessors will be generated on the semantic form of the attribute, 1848*67e74705SXin Liaccepting no arguments and returning a ``bool``. 1849*67e74705SXin Li 1850*67e74705SXin LiAttributes that do not require custom semantic handling should set the 1851*67e74705SXin Li``SemaHandler`` field to ``0``. Note that anything inheriting from 1852*67e74705SXin Li``IgnoredAttr`` automatically do not get a semantic handler. All other 1853*67e74705SXin Liattributes are assumed to use a semantic handler by default. Attributes 1854*67e74705SXin Liwithout a semantic handler are not given a parsed attribute ``Kind`` enumerator. 1855*67e74705SXin Li 1856*67e74705SXin LiTarget-specific attributes may share a spelling with other attributes in 1857*67e74705SXin Lidifferent targets. For instance, the ARM and MSP430 targets both have an 1858*67e74705SXin Liattribute spelled ``GNU<"interrupt">``, but with different parsing and semantic 1859*67e74705SXin Lirequirements. To support this feature, an attribute inheriting from 1860*67e74705SXin Li``TargetSpecificAttribute`` may specify a ``ParseKind`` field. This field 1861*67e74705SXin Lishould be the same value between all arguments sharing a spelling, and 1862*67e74705SXin Licorresponds to the parsed attribute's ``Kind`` enumerator. This allows 1863*67e74705SXin Liattributes to share a parsed attribute kind, but have distinct semantic 1864*67e74705SXin Liattribute classes. For instance, ``AttributeList::AT_Interrupt`` is the shared 1865*67e74705SXin Liparsed attribute kind, but ARMInterruptAttr and MSP430InterruptAttr are the 1866*67e74705SXin Lisemantic attributes generated. 1867*67e74705SXin Li 1868*67e74705SXin LiBy default, when declarations are merging attributes, an attribute will not be 1869*67e74705SXin Liduplicated. However, if an attribute can be duplicated during this merging 1870*67e74705SXin Listage, set ``DuplicatesAllowedWhileMerging`` to ``1``, and the attribute will 1871*67e74705SXin Libe merged. 1872*67e74705SXin Li 1873*67e74705SXin LiBy default, attribute arguments are parsed in an evaluated context. If the 1874*67e74705SXin Liarguments for an attribute should be parsed in an unevaluated context (akin to 1875*67e74705SXin Lithe way the argument to a ``sizeof`` expression is parsed), set 1876*67e74705SXin Li``ParseArgumentsAsUnevaluated`` to ``1``. 1877*67e74705SXin Li 1878*67e74705SXin LiIf additional functionality is desired for the semantic form of the attribute, 1879*67e74705SXin Lithe ``AdditionalMembers`` field specifies code to be copied verbatim into the 1880*67e74705SXin Lisemantic attribute class object, with ``public`` access. 1881*67e74705SXin Li 1882*67e74705SXin LiBoilerplate 1883*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^ 1884*67e74705SXin LiAll semantic processing of declaration attributes happens in `lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp 1885*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp?view=markup>`_, 1886*67e74705SXin Liand generally starts in the ``ProcessDeclAttribute()`` function. If the 1887*67e74705SXin Liattribute is a "simple" attribute -- meaning that it requires no custom semantic 1888*67e74705SXin Liprocessing aside from what is automatically provided, add a call to 1889*67e74705SXin Li``handleSimpleAttribute<YourAttr>(S, D, Attr);`` to the switch statement. 1890*67e74705SXin LiOtherwise, write a new ``handleYourAttr()`` function, and add that to the switch 1891*67e74705SXin Listatement. Please do not implement handling logic directly in the ``case`` for 1892*67e74705SXin Lithe attribute. 1893*67e74705SXin Li 1894*67e74705SXin LiUnless otherwise specified by the attribute definition, common semantic checking 1895*67e74705SXin Liof the parsed attribute is handled automatically. This includes diagnosing 1896*67e74705SXin Liparsed attributes that do not appertain to the given ``Decl``, ensuring the 1897*67e74705SXin Licorrect minimum number of arguments are passed, etc. 1898*67e74705SXin Li 1899*67e74705SXin LiIf the attribute adds additional warnings, define a ``DiagGroup`` in 1900*67e74705SXin Li`include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td 1901*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td?view=markup>`_ 1902*67e74705SXin Linamed after the attribute's ``Spelling`` with "_"s replaced by "-"s. If there 1903*67e74705SXin Liis only a single diagnostic, it is permissible to use ``InGroup<DiagGroup<"your-attribute">>`` 1904*67e74705SXin Lidirectly in `DiagnosticSemaKinds.td 1905*67e74705SXin Li<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?view=markup>`_ 1906*67e74705SXin Li 1907*67e74705SXin LiAll semantic diagnostics generated for your attribute, including automatically- 1908*67e74705SXin Ligenerated ones (such as subjects and argument counts), should have a 1909*67e74705SXin Licorresponding test case. 1910*67e74705SXin Li 1911*67e74705SXin LiSemantic handling 1912*67e74705SXin Li^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1913*67e74705SXin LiMost attributes are implemented to have some effect on the compiler. For 1914*67e74705SXin Liinstance, to modify the way code is generated, or to add extra semantic checks 1915*67e74705SXin Lifor an analysis pass, etc. Having added the attribute definition and conversion 1916*67e74705SXin Lito the semantic representation for the attribute, what remains is to implement 1917*67e74705SXin Lithe custom logic requiring use of the attribute. 1918*67e74705SXin Li 1919*67e74705SXin LiThe ``clang::Decl`` object can be queried for the presence or absence of an 1920*67e74705SXin Liattribute using ``hasAttr<T>()``. To obtain a pointer to the semantic 1921*67e74705SXin Lirepresentation of the attribute, ``getAttr<T>`` may be used. 1922*67e74705SXin Li 1923*67e74705SXin LiHow to add an expression or statement 1924*67e74705SXin Li------------------------------------- 1925*67e74705SXin Li 1926*67e74705SXin LiExpressions and statements are one of the most fundamental constructs within a 1927*67e74705SXin Licompiler, because they interact with many different parts of the AST, semantic 1928*67e74705SXin Lianalysis, and IR generation. Therefore, adding a new expression or statement 1929*67e74705SXin Likind into Clang requires some care. The following list details the various 1930*67e74705SXin Liplaces in Clang where an expression or statement needs to be introduced, along 1931*67e74705SXin Liwith patterns to follow to ensure that the new expression or statement works 1932*67e74705SXin Liwell across all of the C languages. We focus on expressions, but statements 1933*67e74705SXin Liare similar. 1934*67e74705SXin Li 1935*67e74705SXin Li#. Introduce parsing actions into the parser. Recursive-descent parsing is 1936*67e74705SXin Li mostly self-explanatory, but there are a few things that are worth keeping 1937*67e74705SXin Li in mind: 1938*67e74705SXin Li 1939*67e74705SXin Li * Keep as much source location information as possible! You'll want it later 1940*67e74705SXin Li to produce great diagnostics and support Clang's various features that map 1941*67e74705SXin Li between source code and the AST. 1942*67e74705SXin Li * Write tests for all of the "bad" parsing cases, to make sure your recovery 1943*67e74705SXin Li is good. If you have matched delimiters (e.g., parentheses, square 1944*67e74705SXin Li brackets, etc.), use ``Parser::BalancedDelimiterTracker`` to give nice 1945*67e74705SXin Li diagnostics when things go wrong. 1946*67e74705SXin Li 1947*67e74705SXin Li#. Introduce semantic analysis actions into ``Sema``. Semantic analysis should 1948*67e74705SXin Li always involve two functions: an ``ActOnXXX`` function that will be called 1949*67e74705SXin Li directly from the parser, and a ``BuildXXX`` function that performs the 1950*67e74705SXin Li actual semantic analysis and will (eventually!) build the AST node. It's 1951*67e74705SXin Li fairly common for the ``ActOnCXX`` function to do very little (often just 1952*67e74705SXin Li some minor translation from the parser's representation to ``Sema``'s 1953*67e74705SXin Li representation of the same thing), but the separation is still important: 1954*67e74705SXin Li C++ template instantiation, for example, should always call the ``BuildXXX`` 1955*67e74705SXin Li variant. Several notes on semantic analysis before we get into construction 1956*67e74705SXin Li of the AST: 1957*67e74705SXin Li 1958*67e74705SXin Li * Your expression probably involves some types and some subexpressions. 1959*67e74705SXin Li Make sure to fully check that those types, and the types of those 1960*67e74705SXin Li subexpressions, meet your expectations. Add implicit conversions where 1961*67e74705SXin Li necessary to make sure that all of the types line up exactly the way you 1962*67e74705SXin Li want them. Write extensive tests to check that you're getting good 1963*67e74705SXin Li diagnostics for mistakes and that you can use various forms of 1964*67e74705SXin Li subexpressions with your expression. 1965*67e74705SXin Li * When type-checking a type or subexpression, make sure to first check 1966*67e74705SXin Li whether the type is "dependent" (``Type::isDependentType()``) or whether a 1967*67e74705SXin Li subexpression is type-dependent (``Expr::isTypeDependent()``). If any of 1968*67e74705SXin Li these return ``true``, then you're inside a template and you can't do much 1969*67e74705SXin Li type-checking now. That's normal, and your AST node (when you get there) 1970*67e74705SXin Li will have to deal with this case. At this point, you can write tests that 1971*67e74705SXin Li use your expression within templates, but don't try to instantiate the 1972*67e74705SXin Li templates. 1973*67e74705SXin Li * For each subexpression, be sure to call ``Sema::CheckPlaceholderExpr()`` 1974*67e74705SXin Li to deal with "weird" expressions that don't behave well as subexpressions. 1975*67e74705SXin Li Then, determine whether you need to perform lvalue-to-rvalue conversions 1976*67e74705SXin Li (``Sema::DefaultLvalueConversions``) or the usual unary conversions 1977*67e74705SXin Li (``Sema::UsualUnaryConversions``), for places where the subexpression is 1978*67e74705SXin Li producing a value you intend to use. 1979*67e74705SXin Li * Your ``BuildXXX`` function will probably just return ``ExprError()`` at 1980*67e74705SXin Li this point, since you don't have an AST. That's perfectly fine, and 1981*67e74705SXin Li shouldn't impact your testing. 1982*67e74705SXin Li 1983*67e74705SXin Li#. Introduce an AST node for your new expression. This starts with declaring 1984*67e74705SXin Li the node in ``include/Basic/StmtNodes.td`` and creating a new class for your 1985*67e74705SXin Li expression in the appropriate ``include/AST/Expr*.h`` header. It's best to 1986*67e74705SXin Li look at the class for a similar expression to get ideas, and there are some 1987*67e74705SXin Li specific things to watch for: 1988*67e74705SXin Li 1989*67e74705SXin Li * If you need to allocate memory, use the ``ASTContext`` allocator to 1990*67e74705SXin Li allocate memory. Never use raw ``malloc`` or ``new``, and never hold any 1991*67e74705SXin Li resources in an AST node, because the destructor of an AST node is never 1992*67e74705SXin Li called. 1993*67e74705SXin Li * Make sure that ``getSourceRange()`` covers the exact source range of your 1994*67e74705SXin Li expression. This is needed for diagnostics and for IDE support. 1995*67e74705SXin Li * Make sure that ``children()`` visits all of the subexpressions. This is 1996*67e74705SXin Li important for a number of features (e.g., IDE support, C++ variadic 1997*67e74705SXin Li templates). If you have sub-types, you'll also need to visit those 1998*67e74705SXin Li sub-types in ``RecursiveASTVisitor``. 1999*67e74705SXin Li * Add printing support (``StmtPrinter.cpp``) for your expression. 2000*67e74705SXin Li * Add profiling support (``StmtProfile.cpp``) for your AST node, noting the 2001*67e74705SXin Li distinguishing (non-source location) characteristics of an instance of 2002*67e74705SXin Li your expression. Omitting this step will lead to hard-to-diagnose 2003*67e74705SXin Li failures regarding matching of template declarations. 2004*67e74705SXin Li * Add serialization support (``ASTReaderStmt.cpp``, ``ASTWriterStmt.cpp``) 2005*67e74705SXin Li for your AST node. 2006*67e74705SXin Li 2007*67e74705SXin Li#. Teach semantic analysis to build your AST node. At this point, you can wire 2008*67e74705SXin Li up your ``Sema::BuildXXX`` function to actually create your AST. A few 2009*67e74705SXin Li things to check at this point: 2010*67e74705SXin Li 2011*67e74705SXin Li * If your expression can construct a new C++ class or return a new 2012*67e74705SXin Li Objective-C object, be sure to update and then call 2013*67e74705SXin Li ``Sema::MaybeBindToTemporary`` for your just-created AST node to be sure 2014*67e74705SXin Li that the object gets properly destructed. An easy way to test this is to 2015*67e74705SXin Li return a C++ class with a private destructor: semantic analysis should 2016*67e74705SXin Li flag an error here with the attempt to call the destructor. 2017*67e74705SXin Li * Inspect the generated AST by printing it using ``clang -cc1 -ast-print``, 2018*67e74705SXin Li to make sure you're capturing all of the important information about how 2019*67e74705SXin Li the AST was written. 2020*67e74705SXin Li * Inspect the generated AST under ``clang -cc1 -ast-dump`` to verify that 2021*67e74705SXin Li all of the types in the generated AST line up the way you want them. 2022*67e74705SXin Li Remember that clients of the AST should never have to "think" to 2023*67e74705SXin Li understand what's going on. For example, all implicit conversions should 2024*67e74705SXin Li show up explicitly in the AST. 2025*67e74705SXin Li * Write tests that use your expression as a subexpression of other, 2026*67e74705SXin Li well-known expressions. Can you call a function using your expression as 2027*67e74705SXin Li an argument? Can you use the ternary operator? 2028*67e74705SXin Li 2029*67e74705SXin Li#. Teach code generation to create IR to your AST node. This step is the first 2030*67e74705SXin Li (and only) that requires knowledge of LLVM IR. There are several things to 2031*67e74705SXin Li keep in mind: 2032*67e74705SXin Li 2033*67e74705SXin Li * Code generation is separated into scalar/aggregate/complex and 2034*67e74705SXin Li lvalue/rvalue paths, depending on what kind of result your expression 2035*67e74705SXin Li produces. On occasion, this requires some careful factoring of code to 2036*67e74705SXin Li avoid duplication. 2037*67e74705SXin Li * ``CodeGenFunction`` contains functions ``ConvertType`` and 2038*67e74705SXin Li ``ConvertTypeForMem`` that convert Clang's types (``clang::Type*`` or 2039*67e74705SXin Li ``clang::QualType``) to LLVM types. Use the former for values, and the 2040*67e74705SXin Li later for memory locations: test with the C++ "``bool``" type to check 2041*67e74705SXin Li this. If you find that you are having to use LLVM bitcasts to make the 2042*67e74705SXin Li subexpressions of your expression have the type that your expression 2043*67e74705SXin Li expects, STOP! Go fix semantic analysis and the AST so that you don't 2044*67e74705SXin Li need these bitcasts. 2045*67e74705SXin Li * The ``CodeGenFunction`` class has a number of helper functions to make 2046*67e74705SXin Li certain operations easy, such as generating code to produce an lvalue or 2047*67e74705SXin Li an rvalue, or to initialize a memory location with a given value. Prefer 2048*67e74705SXin Li to use these functions rather than directly writing loads and stores, 2049*67e74705SXin Li because these functions take care of some of the tricky details for you 2050*67e74705SXin Li (e.g., for exceptions). 2051*67e74705SXin Li * If your expression requires some special behavior in the event of an 2052*67e74705SXin Li exception, look at the ``push*Cleanup`` functions in ``CodeGenFunction`` 2053*67e74705SXin Li to introduce a cleanup. You shouldn't have to deal with 2054*67e74705SXin Li exception-handling directly. 2055*67e74705SXin Li * Testing is extremely important in IR generation. Use ``clang -cc1 2056*67e74705SXin Li -emit-llvm`` and `FileCheck 2057*67e74705SXin Li <http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html>`_ to verify that you're 2058*67e74705SXin Li generating the right IR. 2059*67e74705SXin Li 2060*67e74705SXin Li#. Teach template instantiation how to cope with your AST node, which requires 2061*67e74705SXin Li some fairly simple code: 2062*67e74705SXin Li 2063*67e74705SXin Li * Make sure that your expression's constructor properly computes the flags 2064*67e74705SXin Li for type dependence (i.e., the type your expression produces can change 2065*67e74705SXin Li from one instantiation to the next), value dependence (i.e., the constant 2066*67e74705SXin Li value your expression produces can change from one instantiation to the 2067*67e74705SXin Li next), instantiation dependence (i.e., a template parameter occurs 2068*67e74705SXin Li anywhere in your expression), and whether your expression contains a 2069*67e74705SXin Li parameter pack (for variadic templates). Often, computing these flags 2070*67e74705SXin Li just means combining the results from the various types and 2071*67e74705SXin Li subexpressions. 2072*67e74705SXin Li * Add ``TransformXXX`` and ``RebuildXXX`` functions to the ``TreeTransform`` 2073*67e74705SXin Li class template in ``Sema``. ``TransformXXX`` should (recursively) 2074*67e74705SXin Li transform all of the subexpressions and types within your expression, 2075*67e74705SXin Li using ``getDerived().TransformYYY``. If all of the subexpressions and 2076*67e74705SXin Li types transform without error, it will then call the ``RebuildXXX`` 2077*67e74705SXin Li function, which will in turn call ``getSema().BuildXXX`` to perform 2078*67e74705SXin Li semantic analysis and build your expression. 2079*67e74705SXin Li * To test template instantiation, take those tests you wrote to make sure 2080*67e74705SXin Li that you were type checking with type-dependent expressions and dependent 2081*67e74705SXin Li types (from step #2) and instantiate those templates with various types, 2082*67e74705SXin Li some of which type-check and some that don't, and test the error messages 2083*67e74705SXin Li in each case. 2084*67e74705SXin Li 2085*67e74705SXin Li#. There are some "extras" that make other features work better. It's worth 2086*67e74705SXin Li handling these extras to give your expression complete integration into 2087*67e74705SXin Li Clang: 2088*67e74705SXin Li 2089*67e74705SXin Li * Add code completion support for your expression in 2090*67e74705SXin Li ``SemaCodeComplete.cpp``. 2091*67e74705SXin Li * If your expression has types in it, or has any "interesting" features 2092*67e74705SXin Li other than subexpressions, extend libclang's ``CursorVisitor`` to provide 2093*67e74705SXin Li proper visitation for your expression, enabling various IDE features such 2094*67e74705SXin Li as syntax highlighting, cross-referencing, and so on. The 2095*67e74705SXin Li ``c-index-test`` helper program can be used to test these features. 2096*67e74705SXin Li 2097