Skip to content

C front-end: Do not lose comments in type checking #4622

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 8, 2019

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

In case of declarations and function calls we need to carry over
comments from the statement's source location into individual
subexpressions as the source location of those subexpressions will be
used when generating the goto program instruction.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

In case of declarations and function calls we need to carry over
comments from the statement's source location into individual
subexpressions as the source location of those subexpressions will be
used when generating the goto program instruction.
@@ -2019,6 +2019,10 @@ void c_typecheck_baset::typecheck_side_effect_function_call(
throw 0;
}

irep_idt comment = expr.source_location().get_comment();
if(!comment.empty() && f_op.source_location().get_comment().empty())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the comment is non empty, should we merge instead of ignoring?

for(auto &d : declaration.declarators())
{
if(d.source_location().get_comment().empty())
d.add_source_location().set_comment(comment);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the comment is non empty, should we merge instead of ignoring?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The new implementation in #4666 also resolves this problem (in parts by just removing the above code :-) ).

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I will merge this now, but will also explore a cleaner solution that doesn't abuse comments and instead has dedicated annotations. Then "merging" will actually be possible as the semantics of those annotations can be clearly defined.

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 3b384ed into diffblue:develop May 8, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the maintain-comments branch May 8, 2019 15:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants