Re: How does c-ts-mode, tree-sitter indentation, and preprocessor directives work?

[Yuan Fu <casouri@gmail.com>]

> On Nov 28, 2024, at 10:30 AM, Filippo Argiolas <filippo.argiolas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>>> From: Björn Lindqvist <bjourne@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:27:17 +0100
>>> 
>>> I've been trying to get c-ts-mode to indent like I want, but I'm
>>> running into problems related to preprocessor directives.
>> 
>> Preprocessor directives are difficult because the tree-sitter C/C++
>> grammars include only partial support for them.
>> 
>>> For
>>> example, consider a type definition nested in two #ifdefs:
>>> 
>>>    #ifdef X
>>>    #ifdef Y
>>>    typedef int foo;
>>>    #endif
>>>    #endif
>>> 
>>> Since both the parent and grand parent of the type_definition is a
>>> preproc_ifdef no rule matches.
>> 
>> But if you go back (up) the parent-child hierarchy, you will
>> eventually find a node which is not a preproc_SOMETHING, and can go
>> from there, no?
>> 
> 
> I believe we might have a bug here, as far as I can tell it does not
> match
> 
>  ((n-p-gp nil "preproc" "translation_unit") column-0 0)
> 
> Because both parent and grand parent are preproc. So it matches one of
> the `c-ts-mode--standalone-parent-skip-preproc' rules right after.
> 
> After skipping preproc nodes parent is translation_unit and indents an offset
> from there. Guess this step could be made smarter to check for
> translation_unit and the rule above could be removed?
> 
>>> Another issue is that I want my
>>> preprocessor directives kept at column 0, which unfortunately screws
>>> up all rules that refer to the parent. E.g.:
>>> 
>>>    ((parent-is "if_statement") standalone-parent 4)
>>> 
>>> Doesn't work for
>>> 
>>>    int main() {
>>>        if (true)
>>>    #ifdef A
>>>            prutt();
>>>    #else
>>>            fis();
>>>    #endif
>>>    }
>>> 
>>> The rule I'd like to express is "take the indent of the closest
>>> *indenting* parent and add one indent". That rule would match whether
>>> that parent is a "while_statement", "if_statement", "for_statement",
>>> etc. You can't express such rules with tree-sitter, can you?
>> 
>> Not sure, but Yuan will know.
> 
> This can be worked around as Yuan showed, but isn't it a grammar bug?
> problem is with the #ifdef function and if statement become siblings, without
> preproc they have a child-parent relation.
> 
> In my experience c-ts-mode is a bit fragile with preprocessor
> statements, probably because the grammar itself is fragile (see
> e.g. [1]) and the problem is an hard one.

Right.

> Yuan, do you think c-ts-mode could some way benefit from LSP knowledge
> about inactive preprocessor branches? Idea is that we would at least
> have a good syntax tree in the active branches while allowing some
> errors in the inactive ones.

Maybe. Technically you can create a parser and sets its range to only included the active branches. But for it to work end-to-end would require some major effort. I’m not sure if it’s worth it (in terms of code complexity and maintenance cost).

Yuan