Thanks for the review! New patch attached. On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > + unsigned x = chunkIndex; > + for (;;) { > + // Walk outwards along the declarator chunks. > + if (x == 0) > + break; > + x--; > > This can just be > while (x != 0) { > x--;
Yeah, that's better.
> + switch (DC.Kind) {
> + case DeclaratorChunk::Paren:
> + continue;
> + case DeclaratorChunk::Array:
> + case DeclaratorChunk::Pointer:
>
> We try to avoid 'default' cases, and this is a good example why. I claim
> that there are no declarator chunks which are actually valid here except
> Paren.
Right.
> Suppressing the error when the chunk is a Function or BlockPointer
> is fine, since we'll still get the more-important diagnostic that the type is
> invalid. We should not suppress the error when the chunk is Reference
> or MemberPointer, though.
I was thinking that in these cases we would get errors about trying to
use a C99 feature in C++, but maybe it's better not to ignore it.
> Also, if someone adds a new declarator chunk
> (not entirely impossible), they should have to consider what to do in this
> case.
That's a good point.
Thanks,
Hans
static_in_array_decls3.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
