shafik added a comment.
In D134334#3805590 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334#3805590>, @erichkeane
wrote:
> I have no real idea what is going on here, the parser isn't an area where I
> spend much time. Can you ELI5?
I am going to try but perhaps fail to explain this in more detail and more
clearly.
IIUC we are trying to error recover, we get to
// Try to resolve the name. If it doesn't exist, assume it was
// intended to name a type and keep disambiguating.
switch (TryAnnotateName()) {
At this point we know the current token is `::` and the next token is an
identifier. We are trying to annotate the name and it could be a C++17 class
template argument deduction case:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/class_template_argument_deduction
If we annotate it we should not be left with current token as `::` and the next
token as an identifier, this is what the assert verifies here:
// Annotated it, check again.
assert(Tok.isNot(tok::annot_cxxscope) ||
NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier));
So the line I modified says we should only break if we actually annotated and
therefore the next token IS NOT an identifier b/c we would have advanced.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
