[PATCH] D75563: [clang][Parse] properly parse asm-qualifiers, asm inline

[Nick Desaulniers via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

nickdesaulniers marked 4 inline comments as done.
nickdesaulniers added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Parser/asm-qualifiers.c:20
+
+void combinations(void) {
+  asm volatile inline("");
----------------
nathanchance wrote:
> nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > nathanchance wrote:
> > > I'm probably being dense but what is intended to be tested differently between `combinations` and `permutations`? I assume the order of the qualifiers? Wouldn't it just be better to merge `combinations` into `permutations` or was there some deeper reasoning for the compartmentalization?
> > `combinations` tests a combination of different `asm-qualifiers` together. `permutations` are just permutations of the combinations that have not been tested above. I may not even have my nomenclature correct.  Shall I combine them?
> I assume that you want permutations since you want to make sure that the ordering does not matter, right? If you just care about combinations then
> 
> ```
>   asm inline goto volatile("" ::::foo);
>   asm inline volatile goto("" ::::foo);
> 
>   asm goto inline volatile("" ::::foo);
>   asm goto volatile inline("" ::::foo);
> 
>   asm volatile goto inline("" ::::foo); // note, this one should probably be added in permutations
>   asm volatile inline goto("" ::::foo);
> ``` 
> 
> could just be distilled down to one of those since they are the same combination of qualifiers (combinations do not care about order). I would say that moving `combinations` into `permutations` would be wise since `permutations` tests the same thing that `combinations` does and more.
Great suggestion, done. Thanks!


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563