Review Request: Add support for "language features"

[Aleix Pol Gonzalez]

> On July 4, 2012, 8:02 a.m., Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > Hmm, what does the stringlist contain? I don't like string's to transport type-like information and features of a language do rather sound like a flags-type. I'm also wondering what this thing does that needs it in the buildsystem manager and not in the language support itself? An implementation for both sides would probably help understanding the intent.
> > 
> > Oh and even if its decided to go into the project interface I'd say it should be in the base interface, not the buildsystem one so project managers which have no buildsystem support can still supply this feature.
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
>     I think he needs it to tell the (c/c++) language support whether it should be analyzed with a C or a C++ parser. The build system support can tell which one should be used.
>     
>     On the other hand, I agree that string is too generic.
> 
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>     Hmm, what information does the buildsystem have that the c++ support does not? I mean currently cmake just sees a bunch of C or C++ files. So this would require some special buildsystem plugin to work in the first place. I dislike that very very much, its the wrong approach IMHO. The parser mode for the C++ parser is completely orthogonal to the buildsystem being used. So the parsing mode shouldn't be something decided based on the buildsystem, but rather based on the actual file.
>     
>     Can C vs. C++ be determined for a file automatically? If not, I'd say a project config page supplied by the cpp-plugin that lets you choose between C and C++ parsing mode is completely sufficient. If there is sufficient demand for having more finegrained control over the type of parsing per folder or file, then the config page needs to get some support for wildcard matching or the like.
>     
>     If there is indeed a way to find this out for most of the files, then the c++ plugin should do exactly that.

well, in the system side, it's cmake who decides if gcc or g++ should be used, no? So it would make sense if we did likewise.

Am I missing anything?


- Aleix


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105299/#review15362
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 20, 2012, 1:43 a.m., Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105299/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 20, 2012, 1:43 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDevelop.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add support for "language features"
> 
> Sometimes the same language can run using different variants - the most
> obvious example is the C++ language support, which may also support C
> and other variants and behave differently according to the type of file.
> 
> This patch adds a new method to IBuildSystemManager allowing it to get a
> list of features to pass to ILanguageSupport::createParseJob as an
> additional argument. ILanguageSupport can then adapt the behavior of its
> parser according to the features the build manager says the parsed file
> uses.
> 
> Corresponding support for kdevelop (since this patch breaks API compatibility) is there: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105300/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   language/backgroundparser/backgroundparser.cpp 417a8e4b7f38acfa959959895f186c11e3a76f93 
>   language/backgroundparser/tests/testlanguagesupport.h ed3864c9e8da8eed97d3d91500eec6c623fae41e 
>   language/backgroundparser/tests/testlanguagesupport.cpp 3f88894d728610ebd433bff46936f38dcd2138be 
>   language/interfaces/ilanguagesupport.h 22cedf09656aaf80275dd3a14d3752003fe9a912 
>   project/interfaces/ibuildsystemmanager.h c0813d8f781b0be29829b9278f191299af823b68 
>   project/interfaces/ibuildsystemmanager.cpp 74af0e76f8c8bc9276d79ff54be4d3d41927c298 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105299/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compiled kdevplatform & updated kdevelop, checked things were working.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexandre Courbot
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20120704/0e121172/attachment.html>