May 2004 - Transformers

Re: Codeboost and Transformers
by Nicolas Despres 31 May '04

31 May '04

Otto Skrove Bagge wrote: > Nicolas Despres <despre_n(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes: > > >>Hello, >> >>We met each other at the fifth Stratego Users Days. I'm part of the >>Transformers team. We try to find a way to bridge the gap between >>Codeboost and Transformers. I mean, we think about writing a stratego >>filter to convert Transformers AST to Codeboost AST. Thus, we could glue >>Transformers front-end with Codeboost back-end. >> >>Transformers release 0.1 is available on the web at >>http://www.lrde.epita.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Projects/TransformersReleases >> >>Have you planed a next release for CodeBoost soon ? > > > Yes, there is a new release, but it has not been annouced yet (since there > really aren't any external users to announce it to, I haven't bothered). > You can get it at > http://download.codeboost.org/codeboost/codeboost-0.3.0.tar.gz > > The subversion repository is also publicly available (svn checkout > https://svn.cs.uu.nl:12443/repos/codeboost/trunk) > > I had a look at Transformers a while ago, and I think it would be a great > idea to have a bridge between Transformers and CodeBoost (especially if > some of you guys are willing to write it...). I'm currently redesigning > the abstract syntax, so it may be a waste of time to write a converter for > the 3.0 AST. However, I noticed that your abstract syntax seems to follow > the standard grammar quite closely; for example, it preserves the extra > productions used for operator precedence. A good starting point might be > to (design and) convert to an intermediate form which doesn't have these > 'unnecessary' constructors. I believe it would then be easy to convert to > CodeBoost's format (whatever it might end up looking like), and perhaps > also interface with other C++ transformation tools. > > The 3.0 abstract syntax is poorly documented. There is a bit of > documentation in my thesis (available from the CodeBoost web page), and > some recent changes are explained in the NEWS file. I'm trying to do a > better job with the new and improved version. Note that while we in > earlier versions of CodeBoost considered it important to preserve as much > syntactic information as possible (e.g., whether the branches of an 'if' > are compound statements or not, or whether some variables are declared in a > single declaration (int a,b;) or in a sequence of declarations (int a; int > b;)), we no longer feel this is important. This means that the CodeBoost > abstract syntax is more like a high-level intermediate than an abstract > representation of C++. > > By the way, I did some experiments with Transformers on the Sophus library > code (the code CodeBoost is designed to optimise), but I encountered > problems with ambiguities (which was kind of expected, since some type > information was missing). Also, it seemed to be a bit too slow to be > usable for us at the moment. I expect both problems can be solved without > too much trouble. > > -otto > -- Nicolas Desprès nicolas.despres(a)lrde.epita.fr

1 0

[ transformers-Feature request-15 ] Transformers for C
by noreply＠gforge.lrde.epita.fr 12 May '04

12 May '04

Feature request item #15, was opened at 2004-05-12 17:21 You can respond by visiting: http://gforge.lrde.epita.fr/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102&aid=15&group_id=5 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Clement Vasseur (vasseu_c) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: Transformers for C Initial Comment: People are interested in a transformation framework for the C language. StrategoXT already has a C grammar, but it is only used for code generation, it is not completely standard compliant. Using the work we already invested in transformers, we could come up with such a transformation framework for the C language, with a reasonable amount of work. Any volunteer? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://gforge.lrde.epita.fr/tracker/?func=detail&atid=102&aid=15&group_id=5

1 0

104: Investigate testsuite failures 1-39
by olivier 10 May '04

10 May '04

Here is the result of my little investigation on gcc testsuite failures. abi/mangle4: template function definition. fail in afcxx-anonymous abi/mangle8: template method operator() definition. fail in afcxx-disambiguate abi/mangle12: template function definition. fail in afcxx-disambiguate abi/mangle14: abi/mangle15: template fail in afcxx-anonymous compat/init-ref2_y: operator && doesn't work. fail in afcxx-disambiguate eh/cleanup1: declaration of 4000 class attributes, sglr error: 'too many ambiguities'. expr/static_cast3: inheritance with a parameterized class. fail in afcxx-disambiguate inherit/access3: template method definition. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/addr-const1: use of static and non-static class attribute in a struct constructor. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/array11: C code, simple cast with a typedef type. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/array6: char arr [2][4] = { "one", "two" }; doesn't parse. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/copy2: init/copy3: struct s {}; s a = s (); fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/elide1: operator &&. init/empty1: strange base class initialization. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/init-ref2: operator &&. init/new9: template use. fail in afcxx-disambiguate init/ref2: same as init/copy2. lookup/disamb1: call to a method in a base class. lookup/koenig2: same as abi/mangle8. lookup/scoped3: same as lookup/disamb1. lookup/template1: basic template function (parametrized by an int) use. opt/cfg2: fail in afcxx-disambiguate opt/cfg3: opt/cleanup1: opt/const1: these tests are too big, i don't want to investiguate further. opt/inline1: struct A {}; template <typename, typename> struct B {}; typedef B <int, int> C; fail in afcxx-disambiguate opt/local1: declaration of a pure virtual method in a inner class. fail in afcxx-disambiguate opt/mmx1: opt/nrv1: opt/nrv2: operator &&. opt/pr6713: too big test, too many problems. opt/reload1: call to 'operator <<' with 1 argument. fail in afcxx-disambiguate opt/stack1: opt/unroll1: too big, too many problems. opt/static2: similar to lookup/template1. ******************* These piece of code are valid, but fail with parse-cxx. They are related to gcc failing tests. *** int i = 1 && 1; *** int f(); int a = f (); // or struct s {}; s a = s (); *** char a[2][4] = { "one", "two" }; *** // Call to a method in a base class. struct A { void f(); }; struct C : public A { void g() { f(); }; }; *** // Declaration of a pure virtual method in a inner class. struct O { struct I { virtual bool f() = 0; }; }; *** // Call to 'operator <<' with 1 argument. struct A { void operator << (int s) {} void f() { return operator << (0); } }; *** struct A {}; struct B { B(int, const A&); }; B t(1, A()); *** // Strange base class initialization. class a {}; class c : a { c() : a(a()) {} }; *** struct A {}; template <typename, typename> struct B {}; typedef B <int, int> C; *** template <class T> struct a {}; struct b : a<int> {}; -- Les trous noirs sont les endroits ou Dieu divisa par zero.

2 1

Announcement: ASF+SDF Meta-Environment 1.5
by Akim Demaille 10 May '04

10 May '04

1 0