<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
    <tr>
        <th>Issue</th>
        <td>
            <a href=https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55380>55380</a>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <th>Summary</th>
        <td>
            [AsmParser QoI] Improve "expected attribute value" diagnostic
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Labels</th>
      <td>
            mlir:core
      </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Assignees</th>
      <td>
      </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
      <th>Reporter</th>
      <td>
          lattner
      </td>
    </tr>
</table>

<pre>
    The asmparser diagnostics are getting better, we now generate `expected attribute value`  in cases that want integer constants etc instead of complaining about function types.

I wonder if we can do better though: parseAttribute takes an optional type, and if we know we're looking for a value of integer type, we could give a more specific "expected integer value" diagnostic.


</pre>
<img width="1px" height="1px" alt="" src="http://email.email.llvm.org/o/eJxdUsGOmzAQ_Rq4jBoZE0Jy4JB2VSm3VuoPDHgAN8ZG9pB0_74D2Wx3KyHsmfG89-bZbTCvza-RANM0Y0wUwVgcfEhsuwQYCQZitn6AVlaKmf4GdwIf7lLwFJEJsoOiPzN1TAaQOdp2kewN3UJSArAeOkyUgEdkuKNnSTENQtYFn1gSCYg7ySYmNBB6KUyzQ-tXZmzDwtAvvmMbPPDrTGmXqZdMnR__C9yDNwJn-1Vchx5MeBMspGEZxqw8wzbg-V0g41U0ydkwr7joNuR1QPTmDeq6DnqXZC1OuBCuq54-RMDHfKvU5yzP7lVBWJyBwd7EWJiC9Cbxx_a2g0zrd7OenQ-rtP7g_af5ctOU5lSeMGfLjpqs-npO04_Hff0Ml6x6gcs0xyB8H_H_v4xPDPkSXTMyz0m8yfR3-QbL49LuxHsJnLs9ly8C_VsgJbQpLZRkU1XlUeVj09X1sVeGTqWpi7onfSyLUild6aKqFJ1yhy25tGoW_snZKHSdWCKR6M5to5XWqiqKQu2r_XF3wL7SKPtjfSiK4yHbK5rQut2qZBfikMdmE9UuQ5Kis4nTvyKmZAdPm0krPi7yAKRDvJDnmm_6m038X6viAbk">