erichkeane added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp:2670-2676 + + // The next token may be an OpenMP pragma annotation token. That would + // normally be handled from ParseCXXClassMemberDeclarationWithPragmas, but in + // this case, it came from an *attribute* rather than a pragma. Handle it now. + if (Tok.is(tok::annot_pragma_openmp_from_attr)) + return ParseOpenMPDeclarativeDirectiveWithExtDecl(AS, attrs); + ---------------- jdoerfert wrote: > cor3ntin wrote: > > The comment raises 2 questions: should it be called `annot_openmp_attr` > > instead? Does the comment describe what this does? > > I imagine long terms attributes might be the ""normal"" scenario? > > I imagine long terms attributes might be the ""normal"" scenario? > > We can't assume that (C) and for C++ only time will tell. FWIW, C23 is getting C++ style attributes as well, so we MIGHT be able to make that assumption some day :D That said, the fact that these are called "PRAGMA_ANNOTATION" in TokenKinds.def seems misnamed to me anymore, which I think is the confusion. It is a little strange that the `annot` is added automatically, but the `pragma` isn't... Either way, I think it is debatable what the `pragma` in these relates to. My opinion is that it applies to the syntax (since the rest are #pragma SOMETHING), not that it is a `PRAGMA_ANNOTATION`, and I liked `annot_attr_openmp` to match `annot_pragma_openmp`, but I don't feel terribly strongly. See our conversation on TokenKinds for the other half of this discussion. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105648/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105648 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
