vaibhav.y added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Sarif.cpp:161 + Region["endColumn"] = adjustColumnPos( + R.getEnd(), Lexer::MeasureTokenLength(R.getEnd().getLocWithOffset(0), + R.getEnd().getManager(), LO)); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > vaibhav.y wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > vaibhav.y wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > I didn't catch this during the review -- but this is a layering > > > > > violation that caused link errors on some of the build bots. Lexer > > > > > can call into Basic, but Basic cannot call into Lexer. So we'll need > > > > > to find a different way to handle this. > > > > Would moving the code to Support, having it depend on Basic & Lex work? > > > I don't think so -- Support is supposed to be a pretty low-level > > > interface; it currently only relies on LLVM's Support library. I think > > > the layering is supposed to be: Support -> Basic -> Lex. > > > > > > As I see it, there are a couple of options as to where this could live. > > > It could live in the Frontend library, as that's where all the diagnostic > > > consumer code in Clang lives. But that library might be a bit "heavy" to > > > pull into other tools (maybe? I don't know). It could also live in AST -- > > > that already links in Basic and Lex. But that feels like a somewhat > > > random place for this to live as this has very little to do with the AST > > > itself. > > > > > > Another approach, which might be better, is to require the user of this > > > interface to pass in the token length calculation themselves in the > > > places where it's necessary. e.g., `json::Object whatever(SourceLocation > > > Start, SourceLocation End, unsigned EndLen)` and then you can remove the > > > reliance on the lexer entirely while keeping the interface in Basic. I'm > > > not certain how obnoxious this suggestion is, but I think it's my > > > preferred approach for the moment (but not a strongly held position yet). > > > WDYT of this approach? > > I think the approach to injecting the function is better here. I've tried > > to make the smallest change possiblew with passing in a function whose > > interface is almost identical to `Lexer::MeasureTokenLength`. The intent > > was to hint at this being the "canonical metric" for token lengths (with an > > example in the tests for the same). > > > > I tried passing start, end locs but couldn't find a strong use case yet > > since `end` would likely always be: `Lexer::getLocForEndOfToken(start, 0)` > I'm not convinced that the less obtrusive change is a good design in this > case. But I also agree that we should not use start/end *locations* either. > `SourceLocation` traditionally points to the *start* of a token, so it would > be super easy to get the `end` location wrong by forgetting to pass the > location for the end of the token. > > My suggestion was to continue to pass the start of the starting token, the > start of the ending token, and the length of the ending token. With the > callback approach, you have to call through the callback to eventually call > `Lexer::MeasureTokenLength()`; with the direct approach, you skip needing to > call through a callback (which means at least one less function call on every > source location operation). Ah, I think I misunderstood your initial suggestion (`json::Object whatever(SourceLocation Start, SourceLocation End, unsigned EndLen)`) seemed like a function call to me, when it seems the suggested change was to pass in an object? Apologies, will fix that up. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109701/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109701 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
