rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51329#1229061, @leonardchan wrote:
> @rsmith So I chose to go with the type sugar route since we would prefer to > have multiple attributes in one attribute list. This type just contains the > underlying type and the macro identifier originally held by the > `AttributedType`. Do you have any recommendations on where this type should > be created? I think the most natural thing to do would be to create the sugar node in `processTypeAttrs` after parsing each "chunk" of attributes produced by the same macro. (You'll need to extend `ParsedAttributesView` so it can tell you which ranges came from which macros.) > I'm thinking I could either make this type a subclass of `AttributedType` > since we will essentially be using this only for attributes declared in a > macro (I think this would allow me to not have to change some of the stuff > that happens under `GetTypeSourceInfoForDeclarator`), or somehow find a way > to make this in another part of `Sema`, although I would still need access to > the parsed attributes so I would know what the macro identifiers are. Your new type sugar node should be a new subclass of `Type` unrelated to `AttributedType`, maybe `MacroQualifiedType`. You'll need to teach `TypeSpecLocFiller` to fill in location information from it, but you can save that into the `ParsedAttributesView` when you parse the attributes and identify the macro expansions therein. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D51329 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
