This document outlines the work needed to make a production compiler, interpreter, or analysis tool able to work smoothly within the Kythe ecosystem. We won’t discuss integrating a build system here — although the details of doing so are similar in broad outlines. The specifics differ enough, though, that build systems are covered in a separate document.
Specific details will vary for a given tool, but there are a number of general features that most or all tools will need to support in order to communicate effectively with other tools.
For simplicity, we will use the word ‘compiler’ throughout, though the same approach applies for instrumenting other analysis tools.
See also: An Overview of Kythe
First, provide a way to link against your compiler as a library and invoke it
on some source code via a direct function call, which we’ll call
analyze function should run the compiler in a special “analysis” mode.
In this mode, the compiler should behave as follows:
don’t generate any executable code
do recover from errors and process the whole input (to the extent possible)
don’t discard any source information you normally throw away (even comments!)
do generate a rich AST, symbol table and type graph
Using this mode, Kythe tools can invoke the compiler as a reusable component for other interesting tasks, such as locating semantic cross-references, extracting structured documentation, linting, syntax highlighting, code folding, and so forth.
Adding Support for a New Language
Adding support for a new language to Kythe consists in instrumenting a compiler for that language to emit information about the fully lexed, parsed, and type-resolved AST in a Kythe-compliant intermediate representation. In some cases (e.g., Haskell), a library may already exist to provide these data — in which case, the task is much simpler. Often, however, existing tools do not provide what we need.
The information needed to supply semantic cross-references, extract structured documentation, perform syntax highlighting and code-folding, and other tasks on a source file in language X is a subset of what the front-end of a compiler for that language generates. Lexing and parsing the source is usually not that complex (though there are notable exceptions like C++), but for more interesting tasks you’ll also need type and dependency information.
In brief, the steps to add support for a new language are:
Identify a suitable compiler or interpreter for the language.
Instrument the compiler to emit Kythe-compliant graph artifacts.
[optional, as needed] Update the Kythe schema for any new concepts that need to be modeled to support your language.
Step (1) should be straightforward: Ideally, you should use whatever compiler is used to produce your production binaries for the language — that way you can be sure your analysis results will agree with your production code. In some cases, this may not be feasible, however — many compilers are not designed to be invoked as libraries. In that case you may wind up having to compromise on using some other implementation. The important points are:
Do not rewrite the compiler. By design, the Kythe project does not write or maintain separate compilers for the languages it supports. For each language, choose one canonical compiler (preferably, the one that you would use to process the language in a production environment), and use it to build your indexer. If such a compiler does not yet exist, then finding or creating an alternative should be the first priority.
Push compiler changes upstream. When you do have to work around limitations in your chosen compiler, try to find solutions that can be folded back into the compiler itself, and plan to offer your changes to the maintainer of the compiler for a future revision. Standardizing the features needed to produce a valuable index is an important high-level goal of the Kythe project; owning parts of the toolchain is decidedly not.
Avoid forking the compiler. Occasionally the only way to get what you need will be to fork an existing compiler. This should be seen as a measure of last resort, to be avoided if at all possible. If there truly is no other solution, try to fork only the pieces you absolutely have to change, and maintain compatibility with as much of the remaining code as possible. Moreover, as described in point (2), try to make your changes in a way that will permit re-integration with the upstream project as soon as possible.
Step (2) is where the interesting work happens. Ideally, this work would be done by the author or maintainers of the compiler, but in practice the initial work is sometimes performed by an outside contributor (at Google, many of our existing language analyzers were initially written by a Kythe team member, for example). However, we want to encourage the compiler owners to take control of this work at some point. We have not yet met a compiler team who are opposed to having their compiler emit high-quality metadata. For example, they may improve support by storing documentation comments within the AST so Kythe can add the text to its index.
Step (3) is an optional step that can be undertaken by whomever is implementing Step (2). Often, no schema changes will be needed at all, particularly for analyses that re-use existing schema components like cross-references and documentation comments, for which we already have a pretty solid model. If your language requires some new kind of data to work smoothly, though, this is where it should be documented.
Once all three of these steps are complete, your new language is ready to plug into the Kythe ecosystem.
Interfacing with the Compiler
Kythe provides tools for invoking a language analyzer, which it does using information captured from the build system. The details of build system integration are outside the scope of this document, though in outline it is similar to compiler integration. The important point for writing a language analyzer is to record how to invoke the compiler front-end, given the settings from the build system, including
The command-line for the compiler invocation
All the input files required to process the compilation
There are several ways to hook into the compiler, and we discuss a few of the more common models here.
By far the most common (and flexible) approach is for the language analyzer to statically link against the compiler as a library. The analyzer and compiler run in the same process, and the indexer queries the compiler’s data structures via direct function or method calls.
This approach has pros and cons. It is usually the easiest path for the compiler team to take, since it just requires exposing some previously private functions and data structures. It also yields the richest data for the indexer, since it’s all right there in memory.
One downside is that it tends to force the analyzer to be written in the same language as the compiler, which can sometimes limit code sharing across Kythe indexers. Another is that it closely couples the indexer’s implementation to the compiler internals. The coupling can be ameliorated by having the compiler expose "internal public" APIs, although the extra layer can make it harder to get at the data the indexer actually needs.
In practice, providing a typed AST visitor and/or access to a symbol table are usually sufficient for loose coupling and rich data availability.
Some compilers are written to support IDEs directly, such as the Eclipse JDT (for Java) and CDT (for C++) compilers. Such compilers often produce high-level code indexes for their own internal consumption. One way to extract data for Kythe is to process that internal index — either using library-level APIs (i.e., by linking the compiler in-process) or by running the compiler with the appropriate flags to dump out the underlying data.
The main problem we’ve encountered with such pre-composed indexes is that they tend to have a public API that exports only what the designers anticipated would be needed for their primary client, for instance an IDE. Kythe supports many different kinds of clients, including static analysis clients and database query engines — so as a general rule, Kythe needs all the information your compiler generates in its semantic analysis. However, in the absence of a more direct approach, this can be one way to get started.
When you’re instrumenting a compiler for Kythe, you need to decide which Kythe features you want to support. This is often a moving target, as both compilers and the languages they implement are subject to change over time. As such, it’s usually a matter of judgement — but since the Kythe data model is designed to cope with missing or incomplete information, it’s fine to start by emitting any information that’s easy to construct. You can go back and add additional data later on as the need arises.
The safest way to be forward-compatible is to have your compiler expose everything up front. If no information is ever thrown away, then we won’t need to ask you to add it back in later. We recognize, however, that this is often difficult and expensive. Kythe is designed to degrade gracefully if the compiler is missing information.
The main feature needed to provide minimal Kythe functionality is a fully type-resolved AST. By type-resolved we mean that for each indexable entity that has a type, Kythe should be able to find a representation of that entity’s associated type.
This core facility is used in many situations: static analysis queries, file
outlining, structural navigation (e.g.,
next-function), and others.
The AST must faithfully represent the original source, with no tree rewrites.
For languages with macros or code generation, we need ASTs for both the pre- and post-preprocessed versions.
All AST nodes must include their source file offset and length. The length is node-specific but should encompass all children.
The AST should provide a visitor interface that walks the whole tree. The indexer can use your visitor to create a richer interface with preorder/postorder/inorder traversals, node parent links and so on.
An AST should be created even for files that do not compile (if possible). The compiler should perform error recovery, and may choose to model error nodes explicitly.
It’s fine if the AST produced by the compiler is highly language-specific; the purpose of the analyzer is to walk through this structure and emit a subset of its data into the Kythe graph. The important part for the analyzer is to have all the information available.
Kythe needs access to the association between named entities and their referents. This information is important to support features like jump-to-definition, hover-documentation and cross-references.
Sometimes this information is attached directly to the compiler’s AST, but in other cases it’s represented by a separate “symbol table” generated by the compiler. For compilers that use this structure, it should be exposed so that Kythe tools can resolve names to their corresponding type and definition data.
When possible, a compiler should provide a way to resolve a named entity even without an explicit reference in the source — consider the problem of decorating references to named types embedded in documentation comments, for example. These kinds of queries can usually be satisfied from a symbol table, if the compiler provides one.
Optional AST facilities
The following AST facilities are optional but desired. Keep in mind that these features are generally helpful to anyone making tools for your language — not just Kythe!
- Delimiters and keywords
We would prefer to be able to query the AST for information about delimiters and keywords. This is optional if we have access to the tokenizer (see below).
- Parent links
Kythe indexers often need to search up the AST from a given node, so it is helpful if the AST contains parent links. This is optional, however, as we can build a traversable AST during the first visitor pass.
It is very helpful if the AST can be serialized. A binary format is useful for caching ASTs if parsing is at all slow (which for some languages it is). A text format is useful for debugging. Either one, or both, is very helpful. We can of course build our own AST format with a visitor pass, if necessary.
What Kythe Typically Records
Kythe indexes information about various code entities, including:
named, externally addressable symbols such as classes, methods and fields
symbols that are not normally addressable outside a function, such as local variables and function parameters
anonymous classes, anonymous structs or unions, lambda functions
type-system information, including nodes to represent templates, generics, type constructors and the like.
Every recorded entity gets a node in Kythe’s graph. Kythe nodes comprise a unique name (called a VName) that serves as the storage “key” for the node, together with a bag of key-value properties describing features of that node (such as its location, its “kind”, and so forth), and a collection of labelled edges that express its relationships to other nodes. For example, a node representing a function parameter may have edges connecting it to the type of the parameter, the place where the parameter is defined, and so forth.
What Entities Should Be Supported
Although there is some variation across languages as to what constitute objects of interest for Kythe, there are a number of common themes:
The indexer should be able to locate function parameters and local variables, and distinguish between the two.
The AST should ideally provide lists of usage locations for any symbol, though Kythe can synthesize these if necessary.
Each named entity should have type information (see Type Graph below). When appropriate, the type information may be an error or unknown type.
Each named entity should record its relevant language-specific metadata, including but not limited to: visibility modifiers on the definition (private, protected, etc.), access modifiers such as const or final, and other language-specific modifiers such as static, abstract, virtual, native, extern, volatile, etc.
Kythe must be able to distinguish definitions from declarations, if the language differentiates them.
- Implicit definitions
If the compiler generates any entities that participate in the program structure or type graph, even if they are not directly nameable or addressable in the language, Kythe needs to be able to get them. Examples include default constructors, declarations generated through macro expansion, function prototypes, an implicit
thisreference, and iterator/generator objects produced by
yield. The general rule is that any structure in the source should be represented in the AST, even if it does not correspond to literal source text.
Each (named) entity should have a pointer to its defining location in the concrete syntax. Any usages should also point to their defining locations.
- Scope Chain
A named entity should if at all possible have a pointer to its enclosing scope(s). Kythe should be able to determine the lexical scope and (if different) the containing scope for the symbol’s definition node. Note that a pointer to the AST node is minimally sufficient if the AST has a visitor interface.
If the language supports documentation comments, Kythe needs to be able to tie each doc comment to the entity it is documenting — ideally by looking up the comment in the symbol table.
- Suggested URLs
Some built-in (“intrinsic”) language constructs do not have any AST node corresponding to their definitions. However, in such cases the compiler should provide a URL syntax (not necessarily as a compiler facility) that points to canonical online documentation of the built-in. An indexer may use this to give a “location” to such intrinsics.
Working around Frugal Compilers
The Kythe graph records as much information as it can about the “interesting” semantic entities in a source program. In some cases, however, the compiler for the language does not provide everything we would like. In such cases, we generally attempt to work around the problem by doing additional analysis on the compiler’s AST.
Even in statically-typed languages, though, compilers tend to discard data unless they are immediately relevant to the task at hand. By the time Kythe walks the AST, much of the distinguishing information may have been dropped — for instance, the lexical or dynamic scope chains.
In an ideal world, the compiler’s AST provides everything Kythe needs, so that we can build a graph with a simple walk. We prefer this for two main reasons:
Any “synthesized” language semantics embedded in a Kythe analyzer, separate from the compiler itself, are inherently fragile — they can (and do) bit-rot as the compiler and language evolve.
Compilers that provide these data for Kythe are also making them available for other tools.
It can be tricky to balance data richness and compilation efficiency. Some compilers wind up needing separate code paths for the two use cases. But we believe that compilers should — wherever practical — provide introspection facilities natively rather than relying on the tools community to reinvent the semantic analysis done by the core compiler.
Other Optional Compiler Facilities
There are a number of other features we have found useful, beyond the core cross-reference style information. Broadly speaking, the more data a compiler can emit, the better your tools will be overall. Tools are generally the main obstacle to adoption of a language, so it makes sense to support as many as you can.
A compiler should expose its representation of types and their relationships. For complex type structures such as aliases, compound types (e.g., pointers, unions), generics and their specializations, and so on, it should be possible to decipher and capture the structure of the underlying types, at least in outline.
Some languages (e.g., Java) define a specific format for structured documentation along with the language; more commonly, structured documentation is done by convention, using tools like Doxygen. To the extent possible, the compiler should make it easy to figure out the association between source comments, annotations, and other structured or semi-structured source metadata, and the program structures they’re attached to.
Kythe analyzers typically record comments in the index, and attempt to attach each comment to the appropriate statement or expression.
It helps greatly if the compiler provides a list of comments attached to the AST.
The compiler is likely to be smarter about attaching comments to AST nodes than the indexer would be, so doing so is helpful.
If the language supports structured comments (e.g., JavaDoc, JSDoc), the compiler should provide a comment parser module that can identify tags, types and other distinguished structures within the comments. Kythe attempts to record the structure of such comments, as well as links between the comment structures and their associated semantic entities.
Ideally we would like a structured comment to appear as a pre-parsed, pre-resolved AST, so that other tools can process structured documentation after the fact without having to re-invoke the compiler. With sufficient context, Kythe may even be able to synthesize views that the compiler does not provide explicitly, like semantic/structural file outlines and hover-documentation, that a UI can then present without having to incorporate specific knowledge of the underlying language.
Although this facility is optional, it is strongly recommended that you support it. Kythe uses your compiler’s lexical analyzer as an adjunct to syntax highlighting, indentation support and several other important use cases.
It is extremely useful to have public access to the tokenizer itself, to run on an arbitrary source text and get back a token stream. Alternately if we can get at the tokens via an AST traversal that can usually work as well.
One common use for the tokenizer is to permit Kythe to pick up information that was discarded from the AST, either by design or by accident.
Compilers should provide access to compilation diagnostics, including:
compiler configuration errors or warnings
Kythe records diagnostics in a language-agnostic way, so an analyzer has the option to emit a node to represent each diagnostic message, and edges to connect that message to other objects in the graph that are affected by that diagnostic (e.g., a file, a variable definition, an expression).