[aspectc-user] libpuma -- docs, mostly

[Olaf Spinczyk]

Hi Adriaan,

just to give you some advice where to look at ...

* from the class database, i.e. objects that represent classes, 
functions, attributes, etc. you can find the associated concrete systax 
tree with the 'Tree()' method.

* from the syntax tree you can go down to the token level ('token()' and 
end_token()' methods.

* each Token object can be checked whether it is generated by macro 
expansion ('is_macro_generated()' method).

* the unit to which a macro-generated token belongs is a macro body. You 
can find this unit by calling 'belonging_to()' on the Token object. The 
unit can now savely be casted into a MacroUnit, which gives you more 
information, e.g. about the macro call ("FOO").

With this information it shouldn't be difficult for you to track down 
uses of FOO.

If you see a chance to let us participate in your fp6 project or future 
f7 projects, let me know ... ;-)

Best regards,

Olaf


Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently Robert Scott has been asking questions on this list about Puma; he's 
> sort of my "advance man" in this. We're involved in a european fp6 research 
> project that needs to analyze C++ source code. KDE source code, obviously 
> from my email address :) We need to analyze both pre-processed and raw 
> (before the preprocessor runs) code. I'm having a devil of a time tracking 
> things down because the header files don't contain much in the way of 
> comments and the documentation PDF is from 2001 since when most things have 
> changed. I'm going with Puma as contained in the 1.0pre3 tarball of aspectc++ 
> (which doesn't build as is, but Robert had gone down this road already and 
> put up some signposts).
> 
> Puma *seems* to be the most interesting candidate library for parsing since it 
> claims to be able to handle the preprocessor syntax tree as well (unlike, 
> say, Elsa which needs pre-processed source). 
> 
> 
> Suppose I have source code like this:
> 
> #define FOO 1
> int i = FOO;
> 
> I want to track down uses of FOO. The preprocessor syntax tree won't have the 
> int i declaration, while the C++ syntax tree won't have the symbol foo (but 
> rather integer symbol 1). How do I do it? [ I can imagine that the answer 
> lies at a level below puma, actually: just let lemon chew over it. ]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aspectc-user mailing list
> aspectc-user at aspectc.org
> http://www.aspectc.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectc-user