[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Apr 2023 10:17:51 +0300 |
> From: Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:37:08 -0700
> Cc: 62951@debbugs.gnu.org
>
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > To reproduce:
> >
> > emacs -Q
> > C-x C-f src/fns.c RET
> > C-u 3365 M-g g
> >
> > Observe that "if" and "STRINGP" in the body of FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE are
> > fontified in font-lock-function-name-face. This is because the
> > FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE macro is misparsed by tree-sitter as a declaration.
> >
> > Can we teach c-ts-mode to recognize FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE and
> > FOR_EACH_TAIL for what they are, perhaps conditioned on
> > c-ts-mode-emacs-sources-support being non-nil?
>
> I’m aware of this issue, but the truth is there isn’t a good solution to
> it. We need to recognize FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE (not hard) and fix arbitrary
> code after it (hard). In this case it’s a if statement, with macro calls
> and AND operation in it’s condition, it’s already three things we need
> to recognize and somehow handle. It can also be a for loop, a switch
> case, a function call, a while loop. If we want to fix FOR_EACH_TAIL we
> would need to handle every possible thing, at that point we might as
> well have wrote a parser :-)
Sorry, I don't understand the difficulties. The body of FOR_EACH_TAIL
and a few similar macros we use could be on of the following:
. a single simple statement
. an 'if' clause
. a 'while' loop
. a 'do' loop
. a 'for' loop
. a brace-delimited block (this one already works, AFAICS, so we
perhaps need not anything about it)
(In practice, only the first 2 and the last one are used, AFAICS.)
Doesn't tree-sitter tell us enough to figure out which of the above is
in the body? If so, why would we need to write a full parser?
> We can probably fix this very particular case, but it’s still work and
> overhead, and doesn’t mean much.
Please understand: good support for editing Emacs C sources is from my
POV imperative for c-ts-mode to gain traction. One of my gripes about
CC Mode was insufficient support for our macro system and for various
GCC attributes; that improved recently to some extend, but not enough,
and at a price of introducing ugly lists of strings that cause trouble
when used in file-local variables. We must do better in c-ts-mode!
So please make an effort of providing reasonable built-in solutions
for these idiosyncrasies of the Emacs C sources, conditioned on the
new variable c-ts-mode-emacs-sources-support, at least for those of
them that are used widely enough. It is very important.
TIA
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/19
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Yuan Fu, 2023/04/21
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/04/23
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Yuan Fu, 2023/04/26
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Yuan Fu, 2023/04/26
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/27
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Yuan Fu, 2023/04/27
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/04/28
- bug#62951: 29.0.90; c-ts-mode: Incorrect fontification due to FOR_EACH_TAIL_SAFE, Yuan Fu, 2023/04/29