dblaikie 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
----------------
anderslanglands wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > royjacobson wrote:
> > > anderslanglands wrote:
> > > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > > > > anderslanglands wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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)?
> > > > > > > Ah, no, I wouldn't expect them to be in the AST unless there was
> > > > > > > code that used them in the header.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I'm saying/trying to say is this isn't a "AST nodes still
> > > > > > > under construction" that @aaron.ballman is describing, so far as
> > > > > > > I can see - you can completely parse the header, have a complete
> > > > > > > AST then reasonably want to ask "could I default construct an
> > > > > > > object like this" - even if the implicit default ctor hasn't been
> > > > > > > instantiated because none of the parsed code asked that question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure what the API to do this should look like, but it seems
> > > > > > > like a pretty reasonable use case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure about whether they cross some threshold where they're
> > > > > > > too complex/nuanced to go in the C API or not - maybe that's a
> > > > > > > question.
> > > > > > >> 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)?
> > > > > > > Ah, no, I wouldn't expect them to be in the AST unless there was
> > > > > > > code that used them in the header.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's part of the "this is an implementation detail" I was talking
> > > > > > about. *Today* we don't generate the AST nodes for those functions
> > > > > > unless we have to. Nothing says we won't find a reason we need to
> > > > > > always generate those AST nodes, which makes the `needs*` functions
> > > > > > useless. I suppose in that situation, the breakage for the C APIs
> > > > > > is mostly that the exposed `needs*` functions start trivially
> > > > > > returning `false` though, so maybe it's not as bad as it could be...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I'm saying/trying to say is this isn't a "AST nodes still
> > > > > > > under construction" that @aaron.ballman is describing, so far as
> > > > > > > I can see - you can completely parse the header, have a complete
> > > > > > > AST then reasonably want to ask "could I default construct an
> > > > > > > object like this" - even if the implicit default ctor hasn't been
> > > > > > > instantiated because none of the parsed code asked that question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, the situation I mentioned earlier was the validity of the
> > > > > > calls when the class has not been fully constructed in the AST yet.
> > > > > > That's not the case here, which is great.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure what the API to do this should look like, but it seems
> > > > > > > like a pretty reasonable use case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed that the use case is reasonable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure about whether they cross some threshold where they're
> > > > > > > too complex/nuanced to go in the C API or not - maybe that's a
> > > > > > > question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mostly, I think we try to expose APIs that we think we can support
> > > > > > long-term based on what needs folks have. Given that there's a need
> > > > > > here, and the use case seems reasonable, it seems to be something
> > > > > > we should consider supporting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suppose there's another way we could view this need though --
> > > > > > some folks need those special member functions even if Clang
> > > > > > doesn't think they're necessary to generate. Not only is this use
> > > > > > case one such time, but running AST matchers over the AST (like in
> > > > > > clang-query or clang-tidy) may also have a similar expectation of
> > > > > > finding all the special members. So maybe what we need is some flag
> > > > > > to tell Clang "force the generation of those special member
> > > > > > functions" so that we don't have to expose a `needs` function for
> > > > > > them (which helps for the C API users but doesn't help folks like
> > > > > > consumers of AST matchers). (Note, I don't yet know how good or bad
> > > > > > of an idea this is.)
> > > > > Yeah - if someone is interested in doing the work, I'd be curious how
> > > > > some equivalent operations work in the AST matchers? I'd assume
> > > > > there's some way to query if something is copy constructible - and
> > > > > maybe that's more likely to be the query the user wants, rather than
> > > > > the "needs" operations?
> > > > >
> > > > > (like, if we did add the implicit copy constructors into the AST
> > > > > proactively, I don't think I'd want these queries to return "false" -
> > > > > I think likely the intended query is "is this thing copy
> > > > > constructible" (or similar) less about whether the operation is or
> > > > > isn't present in the AST)
> > > > In my case it's "do I need to generate a copy ctor for this type?".
> > > > @aaron.ballman 's suggestion of a way to force the implicits to be
> > > > generated in the AST would work just fine for me.
> > > > That's part of the "this is an implementation detail" I was talking
> > > > about. *Today* we don't generate the AST nodes for those functions
> > > > unless we have to. Nothing says we won't find a reason we need to
> > > > always generate those AST nodes, which makes the `needs*` functions
> > > > useless. I suppose in that situation, the breakage for the C APIs is
> > > > mostly that the exposed `needs*` functions start trivially returning
> > > > `false` though, so maybe it's not as bad as it could be...
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the situation I mentioned earlier was the validity of the calls
> > > > when the class has not been fully constructed in the AST yet. That's
> > > > not the case here, which is great.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is not even about future proofing - this is already bad API. Simply
> > > adding
> > >
> > > ```
> > > void f() {
> > > Test t;
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > in the test in this PR is changing the printed line from
> > > `ClassDecl=Test:3:7 (Definition) (needs ctor) (needs cctor) (needs mctor)
> > > (needs cassign) (needs massign) (needs dtor) Extent=[3:1 - 17:2]`
> > > to
> > > `ClassDecl=Test:3:7 (Definition) (needs cassign) (needs massign) (needs
> > > dtor) Extent=[3:1 - 17:2]`
> > >
> > > I don't think making functions in libclang conditional on whether
> > > somewhere in the headers types are actually used or not is likely to
> > > provide value. It's impossible to enforce non-use of a type if it's
> > > definition is available and it's very unnatural to C++ to rely on it.
> > >
> > > I'm now also pessimistic about the possibility of implementing
> > > **correct** versions of those `std::is...` type traits without Sema.
> > > Default constructors might be template functions that are
> > > SFINAE-disabled, for example. This isn't very exotic - the default
> > > constructors of pair, optional, etc.. are all implemented like this. The
> > > other type traits that we'd want to expose are also pretty similar.
> > >
> > > A solution might be useful even if it doesn't handle all cases correctly,
> > > of course. But IMHO in this case an approach with only AST would be too
> > > partial to justify its shortcomings.
> > >
> > > In my case it's "do I need to generate a copy ctor for this type?".
> > > @aaron.ballman 's suggestion of a way to force the implicits to be
> > > generated in the AST would work just fine for me.
> >
> > But by "generate" you mean "generate a wrapper for this operation", yeah?
> >
> > If you could query the type for "is this type copy constructible", "is this
> > type copy assignable", etc, be adequate for your needs?
> > > In my case it's "do I need to generate a copy ctor for this type?".
> > > @aaron.ballman 's suggestion of a way to force the implicits to be
> > > generated in the AST would work just fine for me.
> >
> > But by "generate" you mean "generate a wrapper for this operation", yeah?
> >
> > If you could query the type for "is this type copy constructible", "is this
> > type copy assignable", etc, be adequate for your needs?
>
> Thinking about it some more, yes I think it probably would. I would have to
> do some minor book-keeping to track whether there was one already declared on
> the class or not, but that's a lot simpler than reimplementing the implicit
> rules. I guess I would need `isDefaultConstructible`, `isCopyConstructible`,
> `isMoveConstructible`, `isCopyAssignable`, and `isMoveAssignable`
@royjacobson it's also going to be pretty problematic to instantiate those
templates as members too.
The AST is pretty accurately reflective of the compiler's understanding of the
type at the time - adding extra instantiations isn't necessarily an improvement
in fidelity. I'd argue it's a loss in fidelity because these things weren't
instantiated by the original code.
(types won't be entirely consistent/stable - member function templates are a
great example - you can add code that'll cause new instantiations, and there's
no way to fully enumerate all possible instantiations. So it's not a goal for a
type description to be stable regardless of the code that uses the type)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135557
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
