On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 07:08:36PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:45:41AM -0800, Christopher Li wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The rule for ident-less declaration is > > > > wow, great. > > > > The series applies to the tree fine. First impression of the series > > looks fine. I am still working on it. > > > > Thanks for the patches. BTW, this is not the "lazy type evaluation" > > you are talking about right? > > No, just the first batch of declaration parser fixes... The next group is > about separating ctype-as-part-of-symbol from ctype-as-parser-state uses. > After that - getting declaration_specifiers() to sane shape, which, BTW, > will relieve the situation with mode bits. Then - cleaning up the type > handling... BTW, I wonder whether if it would be better to just scan for the end of attributes after ( when we are deciding whether it's a function or nested declarator, leaving the actual handling of these guys to after the decision. The thing is, unlike gcc we have the token list anyway, and it's easier to not bother with passing that crap to parameter_type_list(), etc. I'll try to do that and see what falls out; potentially that replaces 7/7 in this series. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
