On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Also, I wonder if you couldn't save the tokens wrapped into some tree > temporarily into the attribute, rather than having to adjust > c_parser_attribute callers. Joseph, what do you prefer here?
I think including whatever parsed data is relevant to this attribute in the structure returned by c_parser_attributes (which is currently a tree) would indeed be better. (If you don't want to put it in a tree, you get to deal with converting attributes away from TREE_LISTs to a better structure, which is certainly desirable - as a separate self-contained patch - but probably a fair amount of work. A very old (2004) attempt at changing how attributes are represented is on static-tree-branch, but I think it's old enough it would only give ideas rather than particularly useful patches.) Note that in any case you should use is_attribute_p for a test for whether an identifier matches a particular attribute. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
