[PATCH] D130337: [pseudo] Eliminate multiple-specified-types ambiguities using guards
Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jul 22 06:33:42 PDT 2022
hokein added a comment.
The change looks good to me.
In D130337#3671575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337#3671575>, @sammccall wrote:
> LMK if anything else blocking here.
I don't want to block you, but I'd suggest postponing it a little bit until we collect some metrics in our internal pipeline (I think usaxena95@ is working on it, hopefully we will get it next week).
> I want to take a stab at changing the enums (cool idea), but I don't think there's much point blocking this patch on it.
Agree.
> Well, I don't think it's the most common (vs just targeting a rule or two) but certainly we never enumerate *all* the rules!
> Interesting idea.
If we look at the existing guard implementations, we have a few of these usages:
- in `isFunctionDeclarator`, we enumerate all rules of `noptr_declarator`, `ptr_declarator`, `declarator` ;
- in `hasExclusiveType`, we enumerate all rules of `decl_specifier`, `simple_type_specifier`, `type_specifier`, `type_specifier_seq` etc;
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list