rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp:3254-3265
+ Token MacroNameTok;
+ ReadMacroName(MacroNameTok);
+
+ // Error reading macro name? If so, diagnostic already issued.
+ if (MacroNameTok.is(tok::eod)) {
+ // Skip code until we get to #endif. This helps with recovery by not
+ // emitting an error when the #endif is reached.
----------------
Hm, is the strict checking here appropriate? I'd expect skipping to start as
soon as we hit the `#elifdef` directive, so the restriction on the form of the
directive should be relaxed and we should just skip to the end of the line.
("When in a group that is skipped (15.2), the directive syntax is relaxed to
allow any sequence of preprocessing tokens to occur between the directive name
and the following new-line character."). For example, given:
```
#if 1
#elif
#endif
```
... we don't diagnose, even though the `#elif` line doesn't match the usual
form for the directive (a //constant-expression// would require at least one
token between `elif` and //new-line//), and I'd expect `#elifdef` to behave the
same way.
With this fixed, the handling of `#elif`, `#elifdef`, and `#elifndef` (when not
skipping) should be identical other than which callback is invoked; can the
implementations be combined?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp:3291
+ if (MI) // Mark it used.
+ markMacroAsUsed(MI);
+
----------------
This doesn't seem right to me: the macro's existence or non-existence does not
affect preprocessing, so the macro was not used. But I assume this and the
references to `MD` below will also be removed once this function stops parsing
a macro name.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101192/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101192
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
