bruno added a comment. Ping!
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23852#529308, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23852#525291, @doug.gregor wrote: > > > This will work, but it's *really* unfortunate to put tentative parsing into > > this code path because tentative parsing is far from free, and specialized > > Objective-C types are getting pretty common in Objective-C headers. Why > > can't the callers be taught to handle EOF and bail out? > > > The unfortunate part of that is it makes all of the callers fragile -- we > have to sprinkle "are we at EOF now" checks all over, or risk running into > the same problem later. We don't typically do that (there are only 7 eof > checks in the parser currently, this adds 6 more). I don't know which option > is worse. Likewise, I'm not sure what's the best tradeoff. And there's probably more to come: some part of PR23057 is likely the need to properly handle EOFs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23852 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
