aaron.ballman added a comment. In D64838#1597771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64838#1597771>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> >> they parse the attributes first then attempt to parse a declaration; if > >> that fails, they fall back to parsing a statement > > Well, I don’t think this reparsing is ideal in terms of compile time either. > > If we really care about attributes on implicit ints: I don’t think that > parsing according to attribute name is so bad solution - if only “possible” > issue is same attr. name for stmt and decl for some future attribute - let’s > talk with GCC devs and make a deal about it. Richard and I spoke about that offline last week and both agree that changing parsing behavior according to the attribute name is not acceptable behavior for the parser. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64838 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
