RE: [cdt-dev] Re: [cdt-patch] Support for task tags, and more... (initi

[Thomas Fletcher <ThomasF@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Schaefer [mailto:dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: June 30, 2003 12:59 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cdt-dev] Re: [cdt-patch] Support for task tags, and more...
> (initial revision)
> 
> 
> Moving to cdt-dev.  cdt-patch should be for patches only...
> 
> Be very careful if we are going down this road, i.e., the CDT parser 
> reporting errors to the user.  In the current scheme of 
> things, the parser 
> is a best effort and is not ready to handle this job.  There 
> currently is 
> no way to know exactly what the compiler will/won't except as 
> valid code. 
> Plus, you will need to deal with compiler errors coming back and 
> correlating them with parser errors, an impossible task 
> without having 
> compiler specific information.

I agree fully with Doug here that this is something that we want
to be very careful of.  For example if I have a compiler which will
let me do all sorts of weirdo extensions, presumably I want those
things even if we don't properly parse it. 

I also firmly believe that this is an area where there is work
to be done to find an appropriate extension point for things like
static analysis tools (ie Klockwork or Programming Research) so
that they can plug their technology in and other modules would
be able to benefit from it.
 
> We have long term plans for this but we still need to get a 
> good search 
> engine out for 1.2.  It would probably be in our best 
> interest to keep our 
> focus on that.

Hear! Hear! Let there be searching!

Thanks,
 Thomas
 
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> 
> 
> 
> "Victor Mozgin" <vic_mozgin@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent by: cdt-patch-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 06/27/2003 02:03 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> To
> <cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-patch] Support for task tags, and more... (initial revision)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         Currently, all IProblems are collected into a single
> TranslationResult during translation, and then this object is 
> converted 
> into
> persistent problem markers on IResources. For initial task 
> tags support 
> that
> is enough. However, for general problem reporting we need to 
> do much more.
>     Even if CModel doesn't (and never will) do a full parse, 
> it can still
> report certain problems, like task tags, missing include files, wrong
> declarations etc. Then indexer will be doing a full parse, 
> and will be 
> able
> to find more problems. In (distant) future, there might be 
> some kind of
> C/C++ analyzer that will report semantic errors. Plus we have build 
> errors.
> To cope with all that, we need careful categorization/marking 
> of problems,
> so we can detect problems as the same even if they are reported from 
> several
> places. Then we'll need something like a problem reconciler 
> (problems with
> problem markers): called with a set of reported problems 
> (which doesn't
> cover _all_ problems), it will detect which problems are the 
> same, which 
> are
> obsolete, inconclusive, etc. So each component that can 
> produce problems,
> will accumulate them in TranslationResult, then pass it to 
> this reconciler
> (which implements ITranslationResultRequestor). Well, that's one of 
> possible
> ways to implement general problem reporting. As it is now, 
> CModelBuilder
> works as a reconciler for task problems ;)
>     Speaking about build problems, I think it would be a good idea to 
> merge
> all problems into IProblem, as it should simplify
> maintenance/localization/etc. I am not sure if it will be possible to
> eliminate creation of (semantically) duplicate 
> translation/build problems 
> in
> all cases: it might require a lot of AI from the problem reconciler...
> 
>                 /Vic
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: John Camelon
> To: cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdt-patch] Support for task tags, and more... (initial
> revision)
> 
> Cool Victor!  Thanks for getting IProblem started, I've been dreading 
> that.
> I have no problem with the work done on the Parser side, I'll 
> let Alain
> comment on the C-Model/UI portion and leave it in his hands 
> to apply the
> patch.
> 
> I do have a question about the overall architecture to 
> support this : is 
> it
> the indexer that is expected to update the TranslationUnit 
> problem list?
> The CModel will never do a full parse and thus will not catch 
> any problems
> inside of method bodies ... but the indexer is doing the full 
> parse on all
> translation unit/build property changes.
> 
> JohnC
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: John Camelon
> To: cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdt-patch] Support for task tags, and more... (initial
> revision)
> 
> 
> 
> Also ... how does this correspond to real compiler build 
> errors in the 
> task
> view?  Are we to consolidate build errors w/our own IProblems 
> so that the
> user does not receive 2 tasks for every real problem?
> 
> JohnC
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-patch mailing list
> cdt-patch@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-patch
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>