[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] CPPClassType.getVisibility(IBinding)
|
I see. But what about using an instanceof check as in the current PDOMCPPAnnotation, which looks like:
if (binding instanceof ICPPMember) {
ICPPMember member = (ICPPMember) binding;
int mask = ~(VISIBILITY_MASK << VISIBILITY_OFFSET);
modifiers &= mask;
modifiers |= (member.getVisibility() & VISIBILITY_MASK) << VISIBILITY_OFFSET;
// ...
Since that method doesn't use the ClassTypeHelper.getVisibility, isn't there a chance for problems if the member's
#getVisibility implementation returns something different from the ClassTypeHelper's implementation?
The code I was expecting to see would have been near the bottom of
ClassTypeHelper.getVisibility(ICPPInternalClassTypeMixinHost, IBinding). An instanceof check right before throwing the
invalidMember exception, something like:
+ if (member instanceof ICPPMember) {
+ visibility = ((ICPPMember) member).getVisibility();
+ if (visibility >= 0)
+ return visibility;
+ }
throw invalidMember(classType, member);
-Andrew
On 13-10-01 01:04 PM, Sergey Prigogin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Andrew Eidsness <eclipse@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipse@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to figure out why this method doesn't check if the argument is an ICPPMember and then use
> ICPPMember#getVisibility. This seems to lead to, at least the potential for, inconsistent results with cases like
> PDOMCPPAnnotation#encodeAnnotation (which does check instanceof, etc.).
>
>
> A nested type is not a ICPPMember but may be used as an argument of CPPClassType.getVisibility(IBinding).
> See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=402878 for more information.
>
>
> To be clear, I haven't traced this to a specific problem in the core CDT, I'm just trying to figure out the motivation
> behind this approach.
>
> It does cause problems in some non-standard extensions which worked in 8.1. Those extensions used internal types and
> shouldn't be expected to continue working. I'm trying to figure out the design goals to reduce the chance of the fix to
> the non-standard extensions breaking in future releases.
>
> Thanks,
> -Andrew
>
>
> -sergey
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
