Add P4-14 type checker logging #343
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
sethfowler
changed the title
ChrisDodd
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2017
| "Expected to be called on the visitor's current node"); | ||
| currentNode->type = type; | ||
| if (type != getOriginal<NodeType>()->type) | ||
| LOG1("Set initial type " << type << " for expression " << currentNode); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be LOG2 or even LOG3
( see https://github.com/p4lang/p4c/blob/master/docs/README.md -- towards the end)
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It would be helpful to have logging for the P4-14 type checker so we can diagnose problems more easily.
This patch adds fairly comprehensive logging.
The
setType()helper methods are just there to avoid bloating the call sites withifs and logging statements. I went with the current interface because it seemed to be the most readable tradeoff. We could just pass the result ofgetOriginal()in at the cost of some verbosity at the call site. We could also go the other way and not passcurrentNodein, but I felt like it was clearer and less error-prone to explicitly specify the node when callingsetType().