newell/nac3
1
0
Fork 0
forked from M-Labs/nac3
Code Pull Requests Activity

update some previous work on top level with the clean up

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ychenfo 2021-08-11 13:31:59 +08:00
parent 1bec6cf2db
commit 43236db9bd
2 changed files with 15 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
nac3core/src/top_level.rs
View File

@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ impl<'a> TopLevelComposer<'a> {
ancestors: vec![DefinitionId(index)],
}
}
pub fn make_top_level_function_def(name: String, ty: Type) -> TopLevelDef {
TopLevelDef::Function {
name,
@ -189,8 +190,8 @@ impl<'a> TopLevelComposer<'a> {
}
}
// like to make and return a "primitive" symbol resolver? so that the symbol resolver can later
// figure out primitive type definitions when passed a primitive type name
// like to make and return a "primitive" symbol resolver? so that the symbol resolver
// can later figure out primitive type definitions when passed a primitive type name
pub fn get_primitives_definition(&self) -> Vec<(String, DefinitionId, Type)> {
vec![
("int32".into(), DefinitionId(0), self.primitives.int32),
@ -220,8 +221,11 @@ impl<'a> TopLevelComposer<'a> {
let mut ret_vector: Vec<(String, DefinitionId, Type)> = vec![(class_name.clone(), DefinitionId(class_def_id), ty)];
// parse class def body and register class methods into the def list
// NOTE: module's symbol resolver would not know the name of the class methods, thus cannot return their definition_id? so we have to manage it ourselves?
// or do we return the class method list of (method_name, def_id, type) to application to be used to build symbol resolver? <- current implementation
// NOTE: module's symbol resolver would not know the name of the class methods,
// thus cannot return their definition_id? so we have to manage it ourselves?
// or do we return the class method list of (method_name, def_id, type) to
// application to be used to build symbol resolver? <- current implementation
// FIXME: better do not return and let symbol resolver to manage the mangled name
for b in body {
if let ast::StmtKind::FunctionDef {name, ..} = &b.node {
let fun_name = name_mangling(class_name.clone(), name);
@ -243,18 +247,20 @@ impl<'a> TopLevelComposer<'a> {
);
ret_vector.push((fun_name, DefinitionId(def_id), ty));
if name == "__init__" { // if it is the contructor, special handling is needed. In the above handling, we still add __init__ function to the class method
// if it is the contructor, special handling is needed. In the above
// handling, we still add __init__ function to the class method
if name == "__init__" {
self.definition_list.push(
TopLevelDefInfo {
def: TopLevelDef::Initializer {
class_id: DefinitionId(class_def_id) // FIXME: None if have no parameter, Some if same as __init__?
class_id: DefinitionId(class_def_id)
},
ty: self.primitives.none, // arbitary picked one
ast: None, // it is inside the class def body statments
resolver: Some(resolver)
}
)
// FIXME: should we return this to the symbol resolver?
// FIXME: should we return this to the symbol resolver?, should be yes
}
} else { } // else do nothing
}
@ -415,7 +421,8 @@ impl<'a> TopLevelComposer<'a> {
}
}
// ----------- class method and field are analyzed by looking into the class body ast node -----------
// class method and field are analyzed by
// looking into the class body ast node
for stmt in body {
if let ast::StmtKind::FunctionDef {
name,

2
shell.nix
View File

@ -6,6 +6,4 @@ in
buildInputs = with pkgs; [
llvm_10 clang_10 cargo rustc libffi libxml2 clippy
];
RUST_SRC_PATH = "${pkgs.rust.packages.stable.rustPlatform.rustLibSrc}";
}