LWN published an article about a tool that does refactoring of C code. Guess what, it’s yet another tool on top of a crappy C-parser that will never grok C well or even hope to support C++. To my great disappointment the author was not aware of my work on Pork. Clearly I have failed in letting people know that complex C and C++ can be refactored with (somewhat raw, but powerful) open source tools.
So far pork has been used for “minor” things like renaming classes&functions, rotating outparameters and correcting prbool bugs. Additionally, Pork proved itself in an experiment which involved rewriting almost every function(ie generating a 3+MB patch) in Mozilla to use garbage collection instead of reference-counting.
So to summarize:
- Refactoring C is hard, but C++ is much harder
- For refactoring C++ there is no better toolchain to start with than Pork
- Pork shares no code with Dehydra.
- Pork is built on the Elsa parser which makes it well-suited for rewriting large amounts of code. Dehydra’s isn’t suitable for rewriting code due to GCC providing a very lossy AST and incomplete location information.
- Pork is not as convenient for analysis needs as Dehydra
For any questions regarding Pork feel free to post on the mailing list or ping me on IRC.
I find it depressing that the comments to the LWN article ended up being about language wars rather than the refactoring topic. Pork is written in C++ which is much more widely known than OCaml. However, I seriously doubt it’s easier for anyone to hack on advanced compiler frontend pieces in a language as ill-suited for the task as C++.