thakis added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:4031
@@ +4030,3 @@
+ ConsumeToken();
+ if (Name->getName() == "uuid" && Tok.is(tok::l_paren))
+ ParseMicrosoftUuidAttributeArgs(Name, Loc, attrs);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> thakis wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Silently ignoring seems like the wrong thing to do -- can we diagnose
> > > (even if it's a less-than-ideal diagnostics with a fixme)?
> > We still skip the majority of [] contents. Maybe the token 'uuid' can
> > appear in some other attribute, followed by something else. So we probably
> > shouldn't diag on 'uuid' followed by not-'(' (right?). Do you want me to
> > add a diagnostic for 'uuid' '{'? What about 'uuid' '['?
> The grammar for the uuid attribute shows it requires the parens (it also
> shows that it only accepts a string literal, so take that with a grain of
> salt), so I think we should diagnose in this case, especially since we're
> manually parsing the args. So if you see "[uuid" followed by any token other
> than "(", I think that's an error (and MSVC treats it as such).
Sure, but uuid could be preceded by other tokens, e.g.
[ someotherattrib(foobar...) ..., uuid {
someotherattrib might take an argument that's called uuid and it might be valid
to have uuid followed by something not '(' there, say [identify_class_by(uuid),
uuid("1-2-3")]. This is a made-up example; I don't know if this is actually the
case, I'm just saying I don't know, so I think I shouldn't diag on 'uuid'
followed by something not-'(' in general.
Do you want me to peephole-diag on '[' 'uuid' not-'(' in the case when uuid is
the first attrib in the attrib list?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23895
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
