rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp:1553-1554
return TPResult::Error;
- if (Tok.isNot(tok::identifier))
+ if (NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier))
break;
}
----------------
shafik wrote:
> cor3ntin wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > This doesn't seem correct to me. If we had `scope::foo bar`, and we
> > > annotate `scope::foo` as a type, then this will get confused by the next
> > > token now being an (unrelated) identifier. This code is trying to detect
> > > if an annotation was performed, so I think it intended to check if the
> > > current token's kind has changed, like is done on line 1295.
> > The confusing bit is that Tok is always an annotated scope already here
> > (L1598), so TryAnnotateName should not modify that first token (unless
> > TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeTokenAfterScopeSpec can somehow replace the current
> > annot_cxxscope by another one, which i don't think can happen?)
> Ok using `tok::annot_cxxscope` also works and I agree it makes sense as well,
> `check-clang` also passes.
>
> So then is the assert below wrong?
>
> ```
> // Annotated it, check again.
> assert(Tok.isNot(tok::annot_cxxscope) ||
> NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier));
> ```
>
> It looks like it will work by accident for most cases b/c it checks
> `tok::annot_cxxscope` first.
> The confusing bit is that Tok is always an annotated scope already here
> (L1598), so TryAnnotateName should not modify that first token (unless
> TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeTokenAfterScopeSpec can somehow replace the current
> annot_cxxscope by another one, which i don't think can happen?)
Yeah, I think `TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeToken` shouldn't ever replace an
`annot_cxxscope` token with a different `annot_cxxscope` token representing a
longer scope specifier -- an `annot_cxxscope` token should always be as long as
it can be. But it might replace the `annot_cxxscope` token with an
`annot_typename`, in which case we want to jump out to line 1671 and try again.
> So then is the assert below wrong?
I think it's right -- we either reach the assert if we replace the
`annot_cxxscope` with something else (an `annot_typename`), in the
`ANK_TemplateName` case, or if we've successfully annotated the name (as one of
various non-identifier things), in the `ANK_Success` case. In either case, we
only reach the assert if we successfully replaced the identifier with an
annotation token, so the assert should succeed.
And the point of the assert, I think, is to ensure that the recursive call to
`isCXXDeclarationSpecifier` cannot reach this same codepath again and recurse
forever, so checking the same condition that we checked on entry seems
appropriate.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
