On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Lang Hames <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: lhames > Date: Sat Nov 3 17:29:05 2012 > New Revision: 167363 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=167363&view=rev > Log: > Support interleaving of other pragmas with FP_CONTRACT at the beginning of a > compound statement. > > Modified: > cfe/trunk/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h > cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp
Test case please! > > Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h?rev=167363&r1=167362&r2=167363&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h Sat Nov 3 17:29:05 2012 > @@ -1498,6 +1498,7 @@ > StmtResult ParseCompoundStatement(bool isStmtExpr = false); > StmtResult ParseCompoundStatement(bool isStmtExpr, > unsigned ScopeFlags); > + void ParseCompoundStatementLeadingPragmas(); > StmtResult ParseCompoundStatementBody(bool isStmtExpr = false); > bool ParseParenExprOrCondition(ExprResult &ExprResult, > Decl *&DeclResult, > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp?rev=167363&r1=167362&r2=167363&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp Sat Nov 3 17:29:05 2012 > @@ -706,6 +706,48 @@ > return ParseCompoundStatementBody(isStmtExpr); > } > > +/// Parse any pragmas at the start of the compound expression. We handle > these > +/// separately since some pragmas (FP_CONTRACT) must appear before any C > +/// statement in the compound, but may be intermingled with other pragmas. > +void Parser::ParseCompoundStatementLeadingPragmas() { > + bool checkForPragmas = true; > + while (checkForPragmas) { > + switch (Tok.getKind()) { > + case tok::annot_pragma_vis: > + HandlePragmaVisibility(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_pack: > + HandlePragmaPack(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_msstruct: > + HandlePragmaMSStruct(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_align: > + HandlePragmaAlign(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_weak: > + HandlePragmaWeak(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_weakalias: > + HandlePragmaWeakAlias(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_redefine_extname: > + HandlePragmaRedefineExtname(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_opencl_extension: > + HandlePragmaOpenCLExtension(); > + break; > + case tok::annot_pragma_fp_contract: > + HandlePragmaFPContract(); > + break; > + default: > + checkForPragmas = false; > + break; > + } > + } This seems rather brittle. Is there anything that will prevent it from becoming a bug every time someone adds a new pragma? Is there any way to factor things so that we get a compiler error or something here that indicates we might need to handle every pragma? What I'm thinking is a function that converts the pragma tokens to a pragma enum that we have some confidence people will update. Then we can have a covering enum switch here (and else where). -Chandler _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
