On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:26 AM, James Molloy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Richard, > > Would it not also be worthwhile adding a case for -=? (and possibly *= / > /=, > but they're less common) > I completely agree, we should fix this for all time. =] We should handle <<= and friends as well. Specifically: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td?rev=148433&r1=148432&r2=148433&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td Wed Jan 18 > 16:54:52 2012 > @@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ > "expected ';' after top level declarator">; > def err_invalid_equalequal_after_declarator : Error< > "invalid '==' at end of declaration; did you mean '='?">; > +def err_invalid_plusequal_after_declarator : Error< > + "invalid '+=' at end of declaration; did you mean '='?">; > Rather than two warnings here, lets generalize this by passing in the operator encountered as a string argument to the diagnostic message. Then the code to extend it becomes trivial.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
