sammccall marked an inline comment as done.
sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/pseudo/tool/ClangPseudo.cpp:231
+
+ if (Disambiguate && PrintForest) {
+ ForestNode *DisambigRoot = &Root;
----------------
hokein wrote:
> nit: we're going to print the forest *and* the disambiguated tree, is that
> intended? IMO, if we specify the `disambiguate` flag, I'd not print the
> forest as well.
I guess you're right. My use case was debugging disambiguation with
`-print-forest -disambiguate -debug=only=Disambiguate.cpp` - I think we need
the before + after + log.
However we can log the "before" with `LLVM_DEBUG()` inside disambiguate()
instead.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/pseudo/unittests/DisambiguateTest.cpp:28
+protected:
+ // Greatly simplified C++ grammar.
+ enum Symbol : SymbolID {
----------------
hokein wrote:
> nit: it seems like we write a lot of boilerplate code just for creating a
> Forest for a single `a*b;` case below, it is fine currently, but if we're
> going to add some more unittests , we might want an automate way to do that.
Hmm, maybe. It's not obvious to me that you can do much better (other
approaches have tradeoffs, e.g. I think having all the nodes/rules/symbols as
named variables is clearer than what we've done in some other places, and I
think depending on the C++ grammar would confuse things).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132487/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132487
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
