Changeset 7cd23d5


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 26, 2015, 6:06:12 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
Rob Schluntz <rschlunt@…>
Branches:
aaron-thesis, arm-eh, cleanup-dtors, ctor, deferred_resn, demangler, gc_noraii, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, memory, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, new-env, no_list, persistent-indexer, resolv-new, string, with_gc
Children:
ed1065c
Parents:
13ca524
Message:

Revert "fixed adapter suffix naming scheme"

This reverts commit 43ffef1bb4f4f9fa7b91108113708cad3f6e2a61.

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • src/InitTweak/RemoveInit.cc

    r13ca524 r7cd23d5  
    99// Author           : Rodolfo G. Esteves
    1010// Created On       : Mon May 18 07:44:20 2015
    11 // Last Modified By : Rob Schluntz
    12 // Last Modified On : Mon Nov 16 16:58:36 2015
    13 // Update Count     : 30
     11// Last Modified By : Peter A. Buhr
     12// Last Modified On : Tue May 19 16:39:32 2015
     13// Update Count     : 1
    1414//
    1515
     
    2121#include "SynTree/Initializer.h"
    2222#include "SynTree/Mutator.h"
    23 
    24 // changes to Validate:
    25 // -check that ctor/dtor has >= 1 argument
    26 // -check that first argument to ctor/dtor has pointer type
    27 // -check that return type is void (0 return types)
    28 // -transform ctor to return its first argument
    29 // -generate ctors and dtors alongside ?=? for aggregate types
    30 
    31 // idea: modify this pass to decide whether an object declaration is
    32 // POD type.
    33 // - If it is not POD-type, initialization should be changed into
    34 //   a constructor call.
    35 // - If it is a POD type, then check that there are no designations.
    36 //   It is probably easiest to leave the declaration in C-initializer
    37 //   form and resolve as normal, since we don't want to actually incur
    38 //   the cost of a constructor unless we have to.
    39 
    40 // change indexer to remove all constructors for a type once a user-defined one appears?
    41 
    42 // question: if a destructor is declared before the scope of a variable ends,
    43 // should it be destructed? Or should we decide this at declaration point?
    44 
    45 
    46 // alternative (that I think I like better, if there aren't any flaws)
    47 //   --flaw appears to be the exponential blowup in the number of ctors described below
    48 // change into constructor form if no designations
    49 // if not POD type, error out if there are designations
    50 // if there are designations, handle them in the resolver
    51 
    52 // ==MAYBE== even possible to rewrite designations not as ?=?, but as ?{} (see initialization.txt)
    53 // there may be some transformation that's required to bring this back into a reasonable form
    54 // for codegen, it'll depend on exactly what the expressions that are fed to the resolver look like
    55 // e.g.
    56 
    57 // struct A {
    58 //   struct B { int x; } b;
    59 //   struct C { int x, y, z } c;
    60 //   struct D { int x; } d;
    61 // }
    62 //
    63 // A a = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
    64 // => struct A a;
    65 //    ?{}(&a.b, (struct B){ 1 } );
    66 //    ?{}(&a.c, (struct C){ 2, 3, 4 } );
    67 //    ?{}(&a.d, (struct D){ 5 } );
    68 // (it obviously shouldn't look like this, but what should it look like??)
    69 //
    70 // (perhaps this?)
    71 // => struct A a;
    72 //    ?{}(&a, (struct B){ 1 }, (struct C){ 2, 3, 4 }, (struct D){ 5 });
    73 // (of course, this requires me to do the grouping found here,
    74 //  and remember that parts might be missing! That said, I'm essentially
    75 //  already doing this in the resolver, so whatever I guess?)
    76 // (note this requires an alternative finder, because these may be
    77 //  function calls, not just simple literals)
    78 // (this is a bit of a recursive problem - in order to know how to group
    79 //  the expressions into a struct to be an argument to a constructor, I need to
    80 //  know what the constructor's signature looks like - but in order to figure out
    81 //  which constructor is being used (and thus what its signature looks like), I need
    82 //  to group the values into a struct type)
    83 // (this seems to imply (to me, anyway) that C initializers can't be represented as
    84 //  constructors without an exponential blowup in the number of constructors present)
    8523
    8624namespace InitTweak {
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.