Long term, I think we should define an enum of attribute argument forms, and TableGen a mapping from arguments to forms, rather than having a bunch of mappings from argument to bool and special cases.
That said, this patch LGTM as a shorter-term measure. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote: > Spare time happened last night; I've attached a patch which > generalizes this into something table-driven instead of relying on a > hard-coded list of attributes in ParseDecl.cpp. > > ~Aaron > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Instead of hard-coding the attributes which expect a type, is there a > >>> way we can gather that information off the tablegen? They currently > >>> take a TypeArgument as their first argument, so it should be pretty > >>> simple to modify the attr emitter to provide a list of attributes > >>> which apply. Then the parser doesn't have hard-coded knowledge about > >>> these one-offs. > >> > >> > >> Yes, we should, but I didn't want to put too much into a single patch. > > > > Makes sense; it's easy enough for me to do that work when I have some > > spare time. > > > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
