ebevhan added a comment. In D57464#1425904 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464#1425904>, @Anastasia wrote:
> I think not. :( But I am wondering if we could proceed for now in some > general direction and then make any improvements later. Probably the biggest > part of this patch is not going to change. Would this make sense? Well, I'm still not convinced that it's the right way to do it... And it feels a bit off to fix things later if we pretty much know what the correct way is now. It feels a bit unreasonable to ask for a larger redesign since this has been laying for a while at this point, but I think that if we're going to do it we should do it right from the start. I think that the way to approach it is either to - Pass a pointer to the `LateParsedAttrList` down through the `Parse*Declarator` functions and `ParseTypeQualifierListOpt` and use it appropriately in `ParseFunctionDeclarator`. That's fairly invasive in all of the callers of the declarator parsing functions, though. - Store a pointer to the `LateParsedAttrList` in `Declarator` and use it the same way as above. This avoids messing with most of the existing functions, but makes Declarator a bit larger. I think I would lean towards the latter since it means less fudging around with a whole bunch of unrelated methods. Do @rjmccall or @rsmith have any further opinions on this? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57464 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
