[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Disallow __has_include and __has_include_next outside of preprocessor directives

[Dmitri Gribenko]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>>> This patch moves the logic around slightly to handle macros better;
>>> instead of relying on the PP Lexer, we track the information in the PP
>>> itself so that is is always available.  I've expanded the test cases
>>> to cover macros more fully.
>>
>>  void Preprocessor::HandleIfDirective(Token &IfToken,
>>                                       bool ReadAnyTokensBeforeDirective) {
>> +  ParsingPreprocessorDirective = true;
>>    ++NumIf;
>>
>>    // Parse and evaluate the conditional expression.
>> @@ -2101,6 +2102,7 @@
>>      SkipExcludedConditionalBlock(IfToken.getLocation(), /*Foundnonskip*/false,
>>                                   /*FoundElse*/false);
>>    }
>> +  ParsingPreprocessorDirective = false;
>>  }
>>
>> We have llvm/Support/SaveAndRestore.h to simplify this.
>
> That's neat, I didn't notice we had that.  However, using that would
> mean I couldn't use a bit-field for the property either (due to
> requiring a reference).  So the question I have is: which is "better"?
>  Given that we already have several other boolean bitfields, I am on
> the fence.

The size of the preprocessor object should not be a big issue, so I
would go with RAII.

Dmitri

-- 
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/