| Re: [cdt-dev] Suggestions for dealing with tests |
|
Hi, A user-defined literal is still of kind integer, char, floating-point or string. So it’d be natural to add the property isUserDefined() to IASTLiteralExpression. Yes, dealing with the suffix is the parsers task. By the standard it’s even the task of the parser to distinguish between the various kinds of number literals.
I don’t exactly know why this is done in the preprocessor. It’d be actually nice to move this task away from it, which would collapse the various kinds of number tokens to one preprocessor number token as described in 2.10.
However, the LR-Parsers probably rely on receiving the tokens as they are delivered today. So we could have an option whether the preprocessor shall classify
the number tokens or not. For the GNUCPPSourceParser we could then move the classification into the parser. Exactly, CPPASTLiteralExpresion.getExpressionType() needs to be changed. Plus, as mentioned before, by using IASTImplicitNameOwner the literal _expression_ can
provide the binding to the operator that is called to create the object denoted by the literal. Markus. From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Corbat Thomas (tcorbat@xxxxxx) Hi Regarding the UDL implementation: So your suggestion, Markus, is to lex user defined literals as tSTRING, tCHAR, tINTEGER and tFLOATINGPT? Shall IASTExpression get a new kind for user defined literals? Recognizing the suffix will be task of the parser then, right? I guess getExpressionType() in CPPASTLiteralExpression must be extended to return the type of the resolved literal operator. That probably makes the implementation a bit easier. Regards Thomas From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schorn, Markus Hi, The preprocessor is not run in a specific language. In case there needs to be different behavior for C and C++ you need to introduce an option which should
be controlled via IScannerExtensionConfiguration (The GPPLanguage and the GCCLanguage provide different objects for this configuration). The testcase needs to be elaborated to test with the two different configurations.
For the case, where we allow user defined literals the checkNumber method needs to behave differently. I also think that the classification of the number literals
in the lexer needs to be changed, however it can be done, such that it works independently of whether user-defined literals are allowed or not. My recommendation is to neither introduce new kinds of tokens nor to create a new IASTNode. I think it is sufficient to let CPPASTLiteralExpression implement
IASTImplicitNameOwner, which allows to provide the references to the implicit function calls. The tests nested in org.eclipse.cdt.core.suite.AutomatedIntegrationSuite should all pass. Markus. From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Hello all, I've been working on getting user-defined literals working syntactically for the past week, I believe I'm in the home stretch as I'm now working through the failing test cases under org.eclipse.cdt.core.tests. I have a few questions regarding this. - Firstly, how do I deal with tests that are supposed to fail in C mode, but pass in C++ mode? The current test that demonstrates this is PerprocessorTests.testGCC43BinaryNumbers. There are 5 binary literals that are tested for failing: 0b012, 0b01b, 0b1111e01, 0b1111p10, 0b10010.10010 With UDLs the first and the last of these should fail, and the middle three can be considered binary literals with UDL suffixes. But in C mode, or C++ sans UDL, they all should fail. Is there a way to test which language the current test
is being run in? - Lastly, I've been testing my branch against master, and I've noticed there are a fair number of tests with errors or failing. Is this expected, or do I have my project set up incorrectly? Thank, Richard |