anderslanglands added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py:1530
+
+ def record_needs_implicit_default_constructor(self):
+ """Returns True if the cursor refers to a C++ record declaration
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > royjacobson wrote:
> > > anderslanglands wrote:
> > > > royjacobson wrote:
> > > > > anderslanglands wrote:
> > > > > > royjacobson wrote:
> > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I don't think we should expose any of the "needs" functions
> > > > > > > > > like this -- those are internal implementation details of the
> > > > > > > > > class and I don't think we want to calcify that into
> > > > > > > > > something we have to support forever. As we add members to a
> > > > > > > > > class, we recalculate whether the added member causes us to
> > > > > > > > > delete defaulted special members (among other things), and
> > > > > > > > > the "needs" functions are basically used when the class is
> > > > > > > > > completed to handle lazily created special members. I'm
> > > > > > > > > pretty sure that lazy creation is not mandated by the
> > > > > > > > > standard, which is why I think the "needs" functions are more
> > > > > > > > > of an implementation detail.
> > > > > > > > CC @erichkeane and @royjacobson as folks who have been in this
> > > > > > > > same area of the compiler to see if they agree or disagree with
> > > > > > > > my assessment there.
> > > > > > > I think so. The 'needs_*' functions query
> > > > > > > `DeclaredSpecialMembers` and I'm pretty sure it's modified when
> > > > > > > we add the implicit definitions in the class completion code. So
> > > > > > > this looks a bit suspicious. Is this API //meant// to be used
> > > > > > > with incomplete classes?
> > > > > > > For complete classes I think looking up the default/move/copy
> > > > > > > constructor and calling `isImplicit()` is the way to do it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About the 'is deleted' API - can't the same be done for those
> > > > > > > functions as well so we have a smaller API?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this //is// meant to be used with incomplete classes for
> > > > > > > efficiency that would be another thing, I guess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > So the intended use case here is I'm using libclang to parse an
> > > > > > existing C++ libray's headers and generate a C interface to it. To
> > > > > > do that I need to know if I need to generate default constructors
> > > > > > etc, which the needs* methods do for me (I believe). The
> > > > > > alternative is I have to check manually whether all the
> > > > > > constructors/assignment operators exist, then implement the
> > > > > > implicit declaration rules myself correctly for each version of the
> > > > > > standard, which I'd rather avoid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would putting a note in the doc comment about the behaviour
> > > > > > differing when the class is being constructed as originally
> > > > > > suggested work for everyone?
> > > > > Why is the `__is_default_constructible` builtin type trait not
> > > > > enough? Do you have different behavior for user provided and implicit
> > > > > default constructors?
> > > > >
> > > > Can I evaluate that from libclang somewhow? I can't modify the C++
> > > > libraries I'm wrapping.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, given:
> > > > ```
> > > > struct Foo { /* ... */ };
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > I want to generate:
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > typedef struct Foo_t;
> > > >
> > > > Foo_t* Foo_ctor();
> > > > Foo_t* Foo_copy_ctor(Foo_t*);
> > > > /* etc... */
> > > > Foo_dtor(Foo_t*);
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > In order to know which ones to generate for an arbitrary struct that
> > > > may or may not have any combination of ctor/assignments defined, I need
> > > > to know which ones exist and follow the implicit generation rules for
> > > > the ones that don't. I can do this myself with a whole bunch of
> > > > version-dependent logic, but I'd rather just rely on libclang since it
> > > > already knows all this much better than I do.
> > > I looked a bit, and it seems they aren't, and that generally libclang
> > > doesn't really know about Sema, so exporting the type traits is not that
> > > easy :/
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what's the best way forward here, but I don't like the idea
> > > of exporting those half baked internal API calls when there are actual
> > > standardized and implemented type traits that perform the same goal.
> > CCing folks who may have more historical memory of the C APIs and whether
> > they're expected to operate on a completed AST or are expected to work on
> > an AST as it is under construction. My unverified belief is that these APIs
> > are expected to work on a completed AST.
> >
> > @echristo @dblaikie @rjmccall @rsmith
> >
> > I'm also not certain of what the best path forward is here. I'm not
> > comfortable exposing the needs* functions because they really are
> > implementation details and I don't want to promise we'll support that API
> > forever. But at the same time, the use case is reasonably compelling on the
> > assumption you need to inspect the AST nodes as they're still under
> > construction instead of inspecting them once the AST is completed. If the
> > AST is fully constructed, then we should have already added the AST nodes
> > for any special member functions that needed to be generated implicitly, so
> > as Roy mentioned, you should be able to find the special member function
> > you're after and check `isImplicit()` on it.
> Not sure I'm quite following - it doesn't look (admittedly, sorry, at a
> somewhat superficial look at the discussion here) like this is necessarily
> about incomplete AST - could parse the header and stop. That's a complete
> AST, yeah? And then it might be OK/reasonable to ask "could this type be
> default constructed" (even if the implicit ctor has been implicitly
> instantiated/there was no use in the source code that's been parsed)
>
> Is that correct?
I am just parsing the headers of a library using `clang_parseTranslationUnit()`
then using `clang_visitChildren()` to inspect the AST. Doing this I do NOT see
any implicitly generated methods, hence why I need these functions. It sounds
like you expect those methods to be in the AST already? Which suggests I'm
doing something wrong in my parsing (missing another function call/option or
something)?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
