fogsong233 wrote:
> > What do you think about this approach?
>
> Makes sense to me. Could be harder than expected but let's try it out.
@vgvassilev
Glad to hear it makes sense! It might be a bit more nuanced than it looks, but
I've pushed a commit with the necessary changes—could you take a look?
Regarding a separate optimization: I think we could simplify
`isCXXDeclarationStatement` by reusing the logic in `isCXXSimpleDeclaration`.
Specifically, we could remove the top-level switch tand reuse the
TPResult::Error case in `isCXXSimpleDeclaration`:
```C++
// In case of an error, let the declaration parsing code handle it.
if (TPR == TPResult::Error)
return true;
```
In this scenario, if we encounter an expression like if or for,
`isCXXSimpleDeclaration` would treat it as an error and default to treating it
as a declaration. However, when `isCXXDeclarationStatement` is called with
`DisambiguatingWithExpression=true`, we could instead treat it as an expression.
While this might be slightly outside the scope of the current issue, I think
it’s worth considering for a cleaner implementation. What do you think, or we
can open another PR?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/178842
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
