Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> writes: > It looks like parser->last_token_was_newline will not be updated while > skipping. Should we update that during the skipping even though we're > not returning tokens?
Thanks for the careful review, Jordan.
While it would be more accurate to do that, I don't think it's worth the
extra code complexity, (that some state would be updated when skipping
while some would not).
And the side-effect from not being strictly accurate here is easy to
ignore. We're talking about EOF occurring while skipping, which is an
"unterminated #if" error that will be caught regardless. The only
effect of this state is whether the lexer correctly knows whether that
EOF occurred with or without a final newline, (and if it gets it wrong,
all it will do is emit an extra final newline).
I'll go ahead and add tests for EOF occurring within an "#if 0" and
within an "#if 1". (I just checked each of these and both work as they
should.)
>> +#define RETURN_STRING_TOKEN(token) \
>> + do { \
>> + if (! parser->skipping) { \
>> + yylval->str = ralloc_strdup (yyextra, yytext); \
>> + RETURN_TOKEN (token); \
>
> I guess this could use RETURN_TOKEN_NEVER_SKIP.
Sure. I'll do that.
Let me know if you'll offer a Reviewed-by given the explanation above.
-Carl
--
carl.d.wo...@intel.com
pgpDbUuyKwC8g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
