aaron.ballman added a comment. In D137020#3940523 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137020#3940523>, @sammccall wrote:
> Not sure this is ready for review again, ignore me if not... > > I'm still not sure why this is correct in principle. Without that, if someone > finds a misparse 6 months from now I don't know how we determine where to fix > it. > > For example, this path is called from > `Parser::isKnownToBeDeclarationSpecifier()` whose contract is `Return true if > we know that we are definitely looking at a decl-specifier... Return false if > it's no a decl-specifier, or we're not sure.` There doesn't seem to be any > room for heuristics, unless we're going to change that contract and audit all > the callers. If this *isn't* a heuristic (it sure looks like one) it needs > some comments on why it's correct. FWIW, I agree with the concerns here; I touched on the same thing with my earlier comments. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137020/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137020 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
