libclang support for Matchers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:17 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

As the dynamic matchers use strings, what stability concerns do you have?
 

On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev


On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:20, Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:17 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

As the dynamic matchers use strings, what stability concerns do you have?
 

Will the supported strings be stable?


On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
For the usage of strings clang already has and is recommended to use of clang-query which supports the same strings.

This would just be moving it from a command line interface to a C API.

I am open to other alternatives if anyone has some.

On 1 Dec 2017 6:13 am, "Jonathan Coe" <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:20, Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:17 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

As the dynamic matchers use strings, what stability concerns do you have?
 

Will the supported strings be stable?


On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev


On 30 Nov 2017, at 19:59, James Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

For the usage of strings clang already has and is recommended to use of clang-query which supports the same strings.

This would just be moving it from a command line interface to a C API.

I am open to other alternatives if anyone has some.


I have no better suggestion and think that this would be very useful.

On 1 Dec 2017 6:13 am, "Jonathan Coe" <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:20, Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:17 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

As the dynamic matchers use strings, what stability concerns do you have?
 

Will the supported strings be stable?


On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libclang support for Matchers

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 8:13 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:20, Manuel Klimek <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:17 PM Jonathan Coe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Does the marchers API offer the stability that libclang tries to provide?
If not, exposing marchers will be tough 

As the dynamic matchers use strings, what stability concerns do you have?
 

Will the supported strings be stable?

Reasonably so, but not libclang C API style backwards compatible forever. The question is how much that matters to libclang users (I honestly have no idea). C API stability seems to be obviously more important, as it can just crash a program. The worst thing with a wrong string here is that you'll get an error back.



On 30 Nov 2017, at 11:05, Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:56 AM James Mitchell via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking to add support for matchers using the "C" API and Python bindings.

I have started doing some initial work to add support for this:

It would be good to get any advice/suggestions relating to these changes I'm still getting familiar with the related APIs and coding standards.

If you find it useful, it seems like a small directed patch that makes sense :)
 
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev