On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 12:09 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 08/04/2017 08:32 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:34 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 08/01/2017 02:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > Changed in v2: > > > > > > > > * Renamed template argument to traits_t; eliminated subclasses, > > > > just > > > > using traits struct. > > > > * Moved enum constants into struct bodies (string constants > > > > can't > > > > be > > > > without constexpr, which isn't available in C++98). > > > > * Fixed typo. > > > > > > > > OK for trunk? > > > > > > > > gcc/c/ChangeLog: > > > > * c-parser.c (c_parser_error): Rename to... > > > > (c_parser_error_richloc): ...this, making static, and > > > > adding > > > > "richloc" parameter, passing it to the c_parse_error > > > > call, > > > > rather than calling > > > > c_parser_set_source_position_from_token. > > > > (c_parser_error): Reintroduce, reimplementing in terms > > > > of the > > > > above, converting return type from void to bool. > > > > (class token_pair): New class. > > > > (struct matching_paren_traits): New struct. > > > > (matching_parens): New typedef. > > > > (struct matching_brace_traits): New struct. > > > > (matching_braces): New typedef. > > > > (get_matching_symbol): New function. > > > > (c_parser_require): Add param MATCHING_LOCATION, using > > > > it to > > > > highlight matching "opening" tokens for missing > > > > "closing" > > > > tokens. > > > > (c_parser_skip_until_found): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_static_assert_declaration_no_semi): Convert > > > > explicit > > > > parsing of CPP_OPEN_PAREN and CPP_CLOSE_PAREN to use of > > > > class matching_parens, so that the pertinent open > > > > parenthesis > > > > is > > > > highlighted when there are problems locating the close > > > > parenthesis. > > > > (c_parser_struct_or_union_specifier): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_typeof_specifier): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_alignas_specifier): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_simple_asm_expr): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_braced_init): Likewise, for matching_braces. > > > > (c_parser_paren_condition): Likewise, for > > > > matching_parens. > > > > (c_parser_switch_statement): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_for_statement): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_asm_statement): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_asm_operands): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_cast_expression): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_sizeof_expression): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_alignof_expression): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_generic_selection): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_postfix_expression): Likewise for cases > > > > RID_VA_ARG, > > > > RID_OFFSETOF, RID_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P, RID_AT_SELECTOR, > > > > RID_AT_PROTOCOL, RID_AT_ENCODE, reindenting as > > > > necessary. > > > > In case CPP_OPEN_PAREN, pass loc_open_paren to the > > > > c_parser_skip_until_found call. > > > > (c_parser_objc_class_definition): Use class > > > > matching_parens as > > > > above. > > > > (c_parser_objc_method_decl): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_objc_try_catch_finally_statement): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_objc_synchronized_statement): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_objc_at_property_declaration): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_oacc_wait_list): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_var_list_parens): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_collapse): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_default): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_if): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_num_tasks): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_grainsize): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_priority): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_hint): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_defaultmap): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_oacc_single_int_clause): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_ordered): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_reduction): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_schedule): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_num_teams): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_thread_limit): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_aligned): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_linear): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_safelen): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_simdlen): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_depend): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_map): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_device): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_dist_schedule): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_proc_bind): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_clause_uniform): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_omp_for_loop): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_cilk_clause_vectorlength): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_cilk_clause_linear): Likewise. > > > > (c_parser_transaction_expression): Likewise. > > > > * c-parser.h (c_parser_require): Add param > > > > matching_location > > > > with > > > > default UNKNOWN_LOCATION. > > > > (c_parser_error): Convert return type from void to > > > > bool. > > > > (c_parser_skip_until_found): Add param > > > > matching_location with > > > > default UNKNOWN_LOCATION. > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.dg/unclosed-init.c: New test case. > > > > > > Phew. I only spot-checked most of the changes around the new API > > > for > > > requiring the open/close paren/brace/bracket or consuming > > > parens/braces/brackets. They were very mechanical :-) > > > > Thanks for looking at this. Do you have an opinion on Trevor's > > idea > > the the "parser" argument should be moved into the token_pair class > > (to > > avoid manually passing it in everywhere), or should it be kept > > outside > > and passed in as needed? > > No opinion. I'd put it where ever it makes the most logical sense > in > terms of code readability -- until such a point as it's shown to be a > bottleneck.
Jason said (for the C++ part of the patch): > About passing parser in or not, I'm happy with the current approach; > adding things to the stack isn't free in a highly recursive program > like GCC. (in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00535.html ) Jeff: is the C patch OK for trunk (assuming the rest of the kit is approved), or were you just reporting that you spot-checked the mechanical changes and that you hadn't seen any problems with those? [...] Thanks Dave
