Re: CComment and problem with ctool.so
Bernhard Fischer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.documentation.synopsis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 08:05:59PM -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote: >Bernhard Fischer wrote: >>Hi Stefan, >> >> >>I'm getting an undefined symbol when trying to use the C parser. Source >>was checked out 2005-02-19: >> >>synopsis -v -d -p C -I. -I../../include -I../../../../include >>-I../../../../include/asm/mach-default -l CComments >>-Wp,preprocess,cppflags="' '" -o sdp_advt.syn sdp_advt.h >>Unable to import Synopsis.Parsers.C.Parser >>Reason : >>/opt/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Synopsis/Parsers/C/ctool.so: >>undefined symbol: _ZN8Synopsis5Trace8my_levelE >>make: *** [sdp_advt.syn] Error 255 >> >>Do you have an idea on what i could be doing wrong? > >Yes. You aren't doing anything wrong. I have moved the 'Trace' class >without adjusting the ctool parser. I hadn't expected that anybody was >using it :-/ > >Do you have plans to use synopsis with C code ? If so, may be you are >interested in testing the Cxx parser used in 'C mode'. My plans are Well, there's a lot of C code out there, so yes, i'm interrested in using synopsis with C :) >to check in a new python frontend that calls the Cxx parser in C mode >and as soon as that is confirmed to work retire the ctool backend. >Let me know if you are interested in testing it, or want to help in >other ways. Yes, i'm interrested in testing it. Currently i am perusing linux/drivers/infiniband/ulp/sdp as my primary testcase (available in recent kernels). Another testcase is here: http://members.aon.at/berny_f/synopsis/ > >>Attached is a quick C style comment parser. Before applying it, one >>should make the intermittent asterisk optional, though..... > >That looks good ! >You are right about the asterisk. In fact, I would add the restriction >that the asterisks have to be aligned, i.e. > >/* > * ... > */ > >would count, but > >/* comment showing that > *foobar is the dereferenced foobar. >*/ > >would not. The asterisk being optional should be expressed using Indeed. >the usual 'Parameter' idiom used everywhere else in the synopsis >frontend. Ok, i'll try to use that. >Would you mind adjusting your patch ? > >Thanks ! > > Stefan