On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:48:19AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > +/* Return true if we're looking at (init; cond), false otherwise. */
>> > +
>> > +static bool
>> > +cp_parser_init_statement_p (cp_parser *parser)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned paren_depth = 0;
>> > + unsigned brace_depth = 0;
>>
>> Do we really need another one of these token scanning functions?
>> Can't you write this in terms of
>> cp_parser_skip_to_closing_parenthesis?
>>
>> > + /* Parse the optional init-statement. */
>> > + tree decl;
>> > + cp_lexer_save_tokens (parser->lexer);
>> > + const bool init_stmt_p = cp_parser_init_statement_p (parser);
>> > + /* Roll back the tokens we skipped. */
>> > + cp_lexer_rollback_tokens (parser->lexer);
>>
>> The save/rollback should be in the the predicate function, not the caller.
>
> How about the version I just posted, i.e.
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg00252.html>?
That doesn't address my first comment.
Jason
