On Aug 6, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>
>> On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> + assert(Tok.is(tok::cxx_defaultarg_end) &&
>>>> + "We didn't parse the whole default arg!");
>>>> + ConsumeToken(); // Consume tok::cxx_defaultarg_end.
>>>
>>> How about we SkipUntil the tok::cxx_defaultarg_end, and give an error if
>>> it's not the next token? That way, if expression parsing doesn't use up all
>>> of the tokens, we'll give a reasonable diagnostic rather than asserting.
>>
>> +1. Assertions for cases that might trigger on invalid code are highly
>> undesirable. I'm not certain if that is the case here, but it looks like it
>> to me.
>
> It won't be triggered on invalid code, it's supposed to be triggered when
> clang left tokens while no errors occured.
I don't agree. The parsing code before this calls ParseAssignmentExpression().
It's entirely possible that something could go wrong in parsing such an
expression that causes extra tokens to be left in the token stream. We should
consume all of the tokens up to and including the tok::cxx_defaultarg_end so
that we know that the parser is in a perfect state once we've finished parsing
the default argument.
- Doug_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
