Hello- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595556.html https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431#c49
Would a C++ maintainer have some time to take a look at this patch please? I feel like the PR is still worth resolving. If this doesn't seem like a good way, I am happy to try another -- would really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! -Lewis On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:28 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello- > > Now that we're back in stage 1, I thought it might be a better time to > ask for feedback on this pair of patches that tries to resolve PR53431 > please? > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587357.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587358.html > > Part 1/2 is a trivial cleanup in the C++ parser that simplifies > adding the support for early pragma handling. > > Part 2/2 adds the concept of early pragma handling and makes the C++ > and preprocessor frontends use it. > > The patches required some minor rebasing, so I have attached updated > versions here. > > bootstrap + regtest all languages still looks good: > > FAIL 103 103 > PASS 541178 541213 > UNSUPPORTED 15177 15177 > UNTESTED 136 136 > XFAIL 4140 4140 > XPASS 17 17 > > Thanks! If this approach doesn't seem like the right one, I am happy > to try another way. > > -Lewis > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 04:23:08PM -0500, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > Hello- > > > > I would like please to follow up on this patch submitted for PR53431 here: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586191.html > > > > However, it was suggested on the PR that part of it could be split into a > > separate simpler patch. I have now done that, and also made a few tweaks to > > the first version at the same time, so may I please request that you review > > this version 2 instead? This email contains the first smaller cleanup patch, > > and the next email contains the main part of it. Thanks very much. > > > > bootstrap and regtest were performed on x86-64 Linux, all tests look the > > same > > before + after, plus the new passing testcases. > > > > FAIL 112 112 > > PASS 528007 528042 > > UNSUPPORTED 14888 14888 > > UNTESTED 132 132 > > XFAIL 3238 3238 > > XPASS 17 17 > > > > -Lewis > > > From: Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> > > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:03:04 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] c++: Minor cleanup in parser.c > > > > The code to determine whether a given token starts a module directive is > > currently repeated in 4 places in parser.c. I am about to submit a patch > > that needs to add it in a 5th place, so since the code is not completely > > trivial (needing to check for 3 different token types), it seems worthwhile > > to factor this logic into its own function. > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > * parser.c (cp_token_is_module_directive): New function > > refactoring common code. > > (cp_parser_skip_to_closing_parenthesis_1): Use the new function. > > (cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement): Likewise. > > (cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_block_or_statement): Likewise. > > (cp_parser_declaration): Likewise. > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c > > index 33fb40a5b59..9b7446655be 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c > > +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c > > @@ -629,6 +629,16 @@ cp_lexer_alloc (void) > > return lexer; > > } > > > > +/* Return TRUE if token is the start of a module declaration that will be > > + terminated by a CPP_PRAGMA_EOL token. */ > > +static inline bool > > +cp_token_is_module_directive (cp_token *token) > > +{ > > + return token->keyword == RID__EXPORT > > + || token->keyword == RID__MODULE > > + || token->keyword == RID__IMPORT; > > +} > > + > > /* Create a new main C++ lexer, the lexer that gets tokens from the > > preprocessor. */ > > > > @@ -3805,9 +3815,7 @@ cp_parser_skip_to_closing_parenthesis_1 (cp_parser > > *parser, > > break; > > > > case CPP_KEYWORD: > > - if (token->keyword != RID__EXPORT > > - && token->keyword != RID__MODULE > > - && token->keyword != RID__IMPORT) > > + if (!cp_token_is_module_directive (token)) > > break; > > /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > > @@ -3908,9 +3916,7 @@ cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (cp_parser* parser) > > break; > > > > case CPP_KEYWORD: > > - if (token->keyword != RID__EXPORT > > - && token->keyword != RID__MODULE > > - && token->keyword != RID__IMPORT) > > + if (!cp_token_is_module_directive (token)) > > break; > > /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > > @@ -3997,9 +4003,7 @@ cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_block_or_statement > > (cp_parser* parser) > > break; > > > > case CPP_KEYWORD: > > - if (token->keyword != RID__EXPORT > > - && token->keyword != RID__MODULE > > - && token->keyword != RID__IMPORT) > > + if (!cp_token_is_module_directive (token)) > > break; > > /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > > @@ -14860,9 +14864,7 @@ cp_parser_declaration (cp_parser* parser, tree > > prefix_attrs) > > else > > cp_parser_module_export (parser); > > } > > - else if (token1->keyword == RID__EXPORT > > - || token1->keyword == RID__IMPORT > > - || token1->keyword == RID__MODULE) > > + else if (cp_token_is_module_directive (token1)) > > { > > bool exporting = token1->keyword == RID__EXPORT; > > cp_token *next = exporting ? token2 : token1; >