v.g.vassilev added a comment.
This looks reasonable to me, but I'd wait for @aaron.ballman greenlight as he
seems to have had more comments/ideas.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Lex/Preprocessor.cpp:1000
+ std::vector<Token> toks;
+ while (1) {
+ Token tok;
----------------
Hahnfeld wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > v.g.vassilev wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Hahnfeld wrote:
> > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > I'd prefer not to assume the token stream has an EOF token (perhaps
> > > > > > the stream is one only being used to parse until the `eod` token
> > > > > > instead), so if we can turn this into a non-infinite loop, that
> > > > > > would make me more comfortable.
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand entirely. Do you want something like
> > > > > ```
> > > > > tok.isOneOf(tok::unknown, tok::eof, tok::eod)
> > > > > ```
> > > > > instead of `tok.is(tok::eof)`? Can this happen at the level of the
> > > > > `Preprocessor`?
> > > > I was thinking something more along the lines of:
> > > > ```
> > > > if (Tokens) {
> > > > for (Token Tok; !Tok.isOneOf(tok::eof, tok::eod); Lex(Tok))
> > > > Tokens->push_back(Tok);
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > > but I hadn't thought about `tok::unknown`; that might be a good one to
> > > > also include given that clangd operates on partial sources.
> > > >
> > > I was wondering if we could somehow merge this routine with
> > > `Parser::SkipUntil` since they seem to be doing a very similar tasks.
> > That could perhaps end up looking reasonable (they do similar tasks aside
> > from collecting the tokens that are being skipped). Do you need the
> > interface to be on `Preprocessor` or `Parser` though (or does it not really
> > matter for you)?
> > `tok.isOneOf(tok::unknown, tok::eof, tok::eod)`
>
> I implemented this check, let me know if this looks reasonable. The code you
> posted doesn't do what we need because we also want to lex if `Tokens` is
> `nullptr`, so the hierarchy must be an `if` inside the loop.
> Given these additional token kinds, does `UntilEOF` still make sense or do we
> want another name? Note that I'll leave `repl_input_end` to
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D158415.
>
> > I was wondering if we could somehow merge this routine with
> > `Parser::SkipUntil` since they seem to be doing a very similar tasks.
>
> I'm not sure this makes sense, given that `Parser::SkipUntil` requires some
> knowledge about the structural input. At the very least, I'd prefer not to go
> into that direction for this change.
I am not sure I understand the reasoning but I somewhat see that having
Parser's `SkipUntil` be implemented with our new `Preprocessor::LexUntil...`
would require a lot more work. How about adding a fixme note capturing this as
a future possible refactoring?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158413/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158413
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
