Include source code location in discovery callback #3141
+403
−101
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This extends the existing discovery callback mechanism to report on functions and methods. At this stage, we don't say much about them, in order to be consistent with other discovery callbacks. Subsequent PRs will add extra callbacks to provide information especially about methods (virtualness, C++ visibility, etc.) Please request changes if you think that sort of information should arrive in these callbacks. Because methods are a fundamentally C++ thing, this splits the current ParseCallbacks test to cover both a .h and a .hpp header. Part of google/autocxx#124
No functional change - just deduplicating the logic which calls this callback, which will make it easier to make further changes in future. Part of google/autocxx#124
This adds more information to ParseCallbacks which indicates the location in the original source code at which a given item was found. This has proven to be useful in downstream code generators in providing diagnostics to explain why a given item can't be represented in Rust. (There are lots of reasons why this might not be the case - autocxx has around 100 which can be found here - https://github.com/google/autocxx/blob/d85eac76c9b3089d0d86249e857ff0e8c36b988f/engine/src/conversion/convert_error.rs#L39 - but irrespective of the specific reasons, it's useful to be able to point to the original location when emitting diagnostics). Should we make this a new callback or include this information within the existing callback? Pros of making it a new callback: * No compatibility breakage. Pros of including it in this existing callback: * No need to specify and test a policy about whether such callbacks always happen together, or may arrive individually * Easier for recipients (including bindgen's own test suite) to keep track of the source code location received. * Because we add new items to the DiscoveryItem enum anyway, we seem to have accepted it's OK to break compatibility in this callback (for now at least). Therefore I'm adding it as a parameter to the existing callback. If it's deemed acceptable to break compatibility in this way, I will follow the same thought process for some other changes too. Part of google/autocxx#124.
emilio
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2025
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
|
Hi, thank you for your work on this PR. It's also useful for me. I was wondering if you might have time to resolve the merge conflicts? I'd love to see this get merged. Thanks again! |
|
adetaylor is unable to comment on this! we will have someone else take a look here |
|
I can't push to the original source branch, but I uploaded #3244 from my fork -- it's rebased and ready to merge. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Builds on top of #3140.
This provides the source code location of an item in the existing item discovery callback. See f607994 for discussion of whether it's OK to break compatibility like this.
Part of google/autocxx#124