Getting AST for C++?

爷,独闯天下 提交于 2019-11-29 09:27:31

You can use clang and especially libclang to parse C++ code. It's a very high quality, hand written library for lexing, parsing and compiling C++ code but it can also generate an AST.

Clang also supports C, Objective-C and Objective-C++. Clang itself is written in C++.

Actually, GCC will emit the AST at any stage in the pipeline that interests you, including the GENERIC and GIMPLE forms. Check out the (plethora of) command-line switches begining with -fdump- — e.g. -fdump-tree-original-raw

This is one of the easier (…) ways to work, as you can use it on arbitrary code; just pass the appropriate CFLAGS or CXXFLAGS into most Makefiles:

    make CXXFLAGS=-fdump-tree-original-raw all

… and you get “the works.”

Updated: Saw this neat little graphing system based on GCC AST's while checking my flag name :-) Google FTW.

http://digitocero.com/en/blog/exporting-and-visualizing-gccs-abstract-syntax-tree-ast

Ira Baxter

Our C++ Front End, built on top of our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit can parse a variety of C++ dialects (including C++11 and ObjectiveC) and export that AST as an XML document with a command line switch. See example ASTs produced by this front end.

As a practical matter, you will need more than the AST; you can't really do much with C++ (or any other modern language) without an understanding of the meaning and scope of each identifier. For C++, meaning/scope are particularly ugly. The DMS C++ front end handles all of that; it can build full symbol tables associating identifers to explicit C++ types. That information isn't dumpable in XML with a command line switch, but it is "technically easy" to code logic in DMS to walk the symbol table and spit out XML. (there is an option to dump this information, just not in XML format).

I caution you against the idea of manipulating (or even just analyzing) the XML. First, XSLT isn't a particularly good way to understand the meaning of the ASTs, let alone transform the AST, because the ASTs represent context sensitive language structures (that's why you want [nee MUST HAVE] the symbol table). You can read the XML into a dom-like tree if you like and write your own procedural code to manipulate it. But source-to-source transformations are an easier way; you can write your transformations using C++ notation rather than buckets of code goo climbing over a tree data structure.

You'll have another problem: how to generate valid C++ code from the transformed XML. If you don't mind spitting out raw text, you can solve this problem in purely ad hoc ways, at the price of having no gaurantee other than sweat that generated code is syntactically valid. If you want to generate a C++ representation of your final result as an AST, and regenerate valid text from that, you'll need a prettyprinter, which are not technically hard but still a lot of work to build especially for a language as big as C++.

Finally, the reason that tools like DMS exist is to provide the vast amount of infrastructure it takes to process/manipulate complex structure such as C++ ASTs. (parse, analyse, transform, prettyprint). You can try to replicate all this machinery yourself, but this is usually a poor time/cost/productivity tradeoff. The claim is it is best to stay within the tool ecosystem rather than escape it and build bad versions of it yourself. If you haven't done this before, you'll find this out painfully.

FWIW, DMS has been used to carry out massive analysis and transformations on C++ source code. See Publications on DMS and check the papers by Akers on "Re-engineering C++ Component Models".

Clang is based on the same kind of philosophy; there's an ecosystem of tools.

YMMV, but I'd be surprised.

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!