hubert.reinterpretcast added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33339#759797, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33339#759146, @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > > The `check-all` target passes even if the ellipsis-after-declarator-id > > disambiguation as a declarator is removed entirely. > > > [...] > > > So, on the whole, the stray ellipsis treatment is both too complicated and > > not complicated enough. > > I think if we want to keep it, the way to do that would be to carry on > through the disambiguation process and treat it as a tiebreaker (that's what > we do, for instance, if we see an undeclared identifier in a position where > we're looking for a type). I'm not convinced that's worthwhile, especially > since our existing testcases do not need this disambiguation rule, but > perhaps we could remove the stray ellipsis treatment entirely for now and > reconsider adding it back if we find poor diagnostics result from it later? Okay. I'll update the patch to remove the stray ellipsis treatment entirely. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33339 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
