Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---

When updating this patch from the 0.3 version, I made the (new) third parameter
KW_ATTRIBUTE only, rather than (KW_ATTRIBUTE | KW_ASM), since it did not seem
correct to allow an asm there; is that correct?

The test case for this was abstracted from an example in the "expat.h" header 
file.

$cat ape.c

typedef void (__attribute__((__cdecl__)) *FP)(void *u, const char *n);

void set_FP(void *cb, FP f);

$

 parse.c |    5 ++++-
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
index db5c9e6..16a6dce 100644
--- a/parse.c
+++ b/parse.c
@@ -1149,7 +1149,10 @@ static struct token *direct_declarator(struct token 
*token, struct symbol *decl,
                if (token->special == '(') {
                        struct symbol *sym;
                        struct token *next = token->next;
-                       int fn = (p && *p) || match_op(next, ')') || 
lookup_type(next);
+                       int fn;
+
+                       next = handle_attributes(next, ctype, KW_ATTRIBUTE);
+                       fn = (p && *p) || match_op(next, ')') || 
lookup_type(next);

                        if (!fn) {
                                struct symbol *base_type = ctype->base_type;
--
1.5.1

typedef void (__attribute__((__cdecl__)) *FP)(void *u, const char *n);

void set_FP(void *cb, FP f);

Reply via email to