majnemer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:1310-1325
@@ -1309,1 +1309,18 @@
+ struct PreserveIdentifierInfoRAII {
+ void set(IdentifierInfo *AtomicII) {
+ II = AtomicII;
+ TK = II->getTokenID();
+ }
+ ~PreserveIdentifierInfoRAII() {
+ if (II) {
+ if (TK == tok::identifier && II->getTokenID() != tok::identifier)
+ II->RevertTokenIDToIdentifier();
+ else if (TK != tok::identifier && II->getTokenID() == tok::identifier)
+ II->RevertIdentifierToTokenID(TK);
+ }
+ }
+ IdentifierInfo *II = nullptr;
+ tok::TokenKind TK;
+ };
+
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Oh, I see what you're doing; this also restores the change to the
> `IdentifierInfo`'s kind when parsing the base specifier. I'm not really happy
> with that approach. Saving and restoring the kind of the `_Atomic` identifier
> while parsing `struct _Atomic` seems OK; doing it when parsing every single
> struct does not seem targeted enough.
>
> Instead, I suggest the following:
>
> * Only change the type of `_Atomic` within the definition of `struct _Atomic`
> * When parsing a base specifier and you see `_Atomic`, change just that one
> token to an identifier
> * When parsing a declaration and you see `_Atomic`, check whether (a) you're
> in a `typedef`, and (b) you've not got a type yet, and (c) the token after
> the next token is a semicolon, and if so, convert that `_Atomic` token to an
> identifier
I can implement your suggestion but I don't think it will work without some
tweaks. What I was accomplishing with my aggressive handling of `_Atomic` was
getting ` typedef _Atomic<_Ty, sizeof (_Ty)> _My_base;` handled "correctly".
The next token after `_Atomic` in that typedef is not a semicolon, it is a
`tok::less`.
If we are going with this implementation technique, I don't think I even need
`Ident__Atomic` anymore.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:1896-1898
@@ -1860,1 +1895,5 @@
// Parse the class-name.
+ if (getLangOpts().MSVCCompat && Tok.isNot(tok::identifier) &&
+ !Tok.isAnnotation() && Tok.getIdentifierInfo() &&
+ Tok.is(tok::kw__Atomic)) {
+ Ident__Atomic->RevertTokenIDToIdentifier();
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This can be simplified in the same way as the previous check.
Sure.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:1899
@@ +1898,3 @@
+ Tok.is(tok::kw__Atomic)) {
+ Ident__Atomic->RevertTokenIDToIdentifier();
+ Tok.setKind(tok::identifier);
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This could be null. But you can just grab the identifier info from `Tok`
> (both here and above).
Sure.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11233
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
