[cfe-commits] r68911 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp test/Lexer/block_cmt_end.c test/Parser/declarators.c test/Parser/objc-foreach-syntax.m test/SemaObjC/exception-go-boom.m

[Chris Lattner]

On Apr 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
>> Implement the first set of changes for PR3963 and rdar://6759604,
>> which tries to do better error recovery when it is "obvious" that an
>> identifier is a mis-typed typename.
>
> Very, very cool. I think you have to work with MSVC's awful error
> recovery to *really* appreciate how nice this is.

:)

>> +/// isValidAfterIdentifierInDeclaratorAfterDeclSpec - Return true  
>> if the
>> +/// specified token is valid after the identifier in a declarator  
>> which
>> +/// immediately follows the declspec.  For example, these things  
>> are valid:
>> +///
>> +///      int x   [             4];         // direct-declarator
>> +///      int x   (             int y);     // direct-declarator
>> +///  int(int x   )                         // direct-declarator
>> +///      int x   ;                         // simple-declaration
>> +///      int x   =             17;         // init-declarator-list
>> +///      int x   ,             y;          // init-declarator-list
>> +///      int x   __asm__       ("foo");    // init-declarator-list
>> +///
>>
>
> We don't parse it yet, but in C++0x there's the unified initialization
> syntax, which makes this valid:
>
> int x {5};

Wow, that's annoying :).  This isn't strictly needed at this point,  
because C++ doesn't have implicit int.  Since  
isValidAfterIdentifierInDeclaratorAfterDeclSpec is only called on  
"valid" code when it would be an implicit int, no C++ cases can  
matter.  However, I'd prefer to keep the interface to  
isValidAfterIdentifierInDeclaratorAfterDeclSpec very simple and  
context independent, so I'll add this. Thanks!

-Chris