aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp:1067
+ bool mayHaveDirectInit,
+ bool mayHaveTrailingReturnType) {
// declarator:
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> Not part of this commit I guess, but //four// bool parameters is truly
> horrific :/
Yeah, a refactoring here would not be amiss (but outside of this patch, I
think).
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp:1416-1417
+ case tok::kw_auto: {
+ if (NextToken().is(tok::l_brace))
+ return TPResult::False;
+ if (NextToken().is(tok::l_paren)) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This seems incorrect to me, consider:
> ```
> auto [[clang::annotate_type("test")]] i = 12;
> ```
> https://godbolt.org/z/7Gx3Gb18h
Ignore this -- `l_brace` is not `l_square`. :-D
================
Comment at: clang/test/Parser/cxx1z-decomposition.cpp:97
decltype(auto) [b] = s; // expected-error {{cannot be declared with type
'decltype(auto)'}}
- auto ([c]) = s; // expected-error {{cannot be declared with parentheses}}
+ auto ([c]) = s; // expected-error {{'auto' not allowed here}} \
+ // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier 'c'}} \
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This first diagnostic is incorrect -- `auto` is definitely allowed there,
> > just that the rest of the declaration is nonsense. I think the "use of
> > undeclared identifier" diagnostic is reasonable. The lambda diagnostic
> > is.... interesting.
> >
> > Any way you can improve this, or is that a slog?
> There were multiple issues there.
>
> The "decomposition declaration cannot be declared with parenthese" error
> which i had remove can still occur at global scope where a declaration is
> expected so i put that back and added a test.
> Then, I'm running all the tests in c++17 and 23 modes as the behavior is
> different.
>
> I did restore the current behavior in C++20 and earlier modes, such that we
> will always consider `auto` starts a declaration. That way we can have that
> structured binding in parentheses diag.
>
> But in c++23 mode, We establish it's not a valid declarator. so we parse it
> as an expression. `[` is always considered as a lambda introducer, which it
> could be, ie `auto([c] {});` is a valid expression assuming that C exists.
> At that point trying to figure out that `]` is not followed by `{` and is
> therefore not a lambda seems extremely tricky as you can have arbitrary long
> expressions between the square brackets.
>
Thanks for the explanation -- that seems defensible to me.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149276/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149276
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
