Rakete1111 marked 2 inline comments as done. Rakete1111 added a comment. In D36357#1501961 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36357#1501961>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D36357#1500949 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36357#1500949>, @Rakete1111 > wrote: > > > How should I do this? Do I just skip to the next `}`, or also take into > > account any additional scopes? Also does this mean that I skip and then > > revert, because that seems pretty expensive? > > > It would be a little expensive, yes, but we'd only be doing it on codepaths > where we're producing an error -- for an ill-formed program, it's OK to take > more time in order to produce a better diagnostic. Skipping to the next `}` > won't work, because `SkipUntil` will skip over pairs of brace-balanced tokens > (so you'll skip past the `}` you're looking for), but skipping until the next > `{` and then skipping to the `}` after it should work. Hmm wouldn't this interact badly with `{}` in initializers? []<int = {0}> {}; [](int = {0}) = {}; ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:2996 + GetLookAheadToken(4).is(tok::identifier))))) { + SourceLocation RightBracketLock = NextToken().getLocation(); + // Warn if the non-capturing lambda isn't surrounded by parenthesis ---------------- rsmith wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > `RightBracketLock` -> `RSquareLoc` > > > > (Our convention is to use `Loc` for "location" and to avoid the word > > "bracket" because it means different things in different English dialects > > -- usually `[]` in US English and usually `()` in UK English.) > `Lock` -> `Loc`. There's no `k` in "location" =) No idea how that k managed to sneak in :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D36357/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D36357 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits