sammccall added a comment. In D130337#3671614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337#3671614>, @hokein wrote:
> If we look at the existing guard implementations, we have a few of these > usages: > > - in `isFunctionDeclarator`, we enumerate all rules of `noptr_declarator`, > `ptr_declarator`, `declarator` ; > - in `hasExclusiveType`, we enumerate all rules of `decl_specifier`, > `simple_type_specifier`, `type_specifier`, `type_specifier_seq` etc; In both cases, we're enumerating all the rules of *multiple* nonterminals. To get the compiler to verify exhaustiveness, we'd have to first switch over target symbol, then switch over rule ID. I expect this to be both a readability and performance hit, so I'm not sure we'll actually do it. Still, `rule::simple_declaration::decl_specifier_seq__declarator-seq__SEMI` is a step up in readability and code-completion IMO. Sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D130414 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130337 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
