On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 08:31:54PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > 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. ... no, it doesn't ;-/ Too much PITA with error recovery, so the original version still stands. Alas. -- 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
