vgvassilev wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> > I suspect we could somehow invert the rule considering eof as a
> > non-terminator when incremental extensions is on. In this case we will have
> > to figure out the places where eof should be treated as a terminator...
>
> So if i understand correctly, we could probably start with something like this
>
> 1. Add a tiny predicate in Parser and use it where a loop means “stop at
> end of the current unit of input”:
>
>
> ```
> // Parser.h
> bool isChunkEnd(const Token &T) const {
> if (getLangOpts().IncrementalExtensions)
> return T.is(tok::annot_repl_input_end);
> return T.is(tok::eof);
> }
> bool isNotChunkEnd(const Token &T) const { return !isChunkEnd(T); }
> ```
>
> 2. Then update parser loops (compound stmt bodies, namespace/class bodies
> present in `clang/lib/Parse/*`)
>
>
> ```
> - while (Tok.isNot(tok::r_brace) && Tok.isNot(tok::eof)) {
> + while (Tok.isNot(tok::r_brace) && isNotChunkEnd(Tok)) {
> ...
> }
> ```
>
> 3. We wouldn't need to touch other `tok::eof` instances (Rewriter /
> Frontend / HTMLRewrite / tidy checks) I think. Only the ones inside `Parse`
> would need to be changed.
>
>
> This should work I think. Let me know if you think we could try this !
Nominally, yes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127569
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
