On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:15:43PM -0400, Lance Richardson wrote:
> This patch introduces support for the C11 _Static_assert() construct.
For me, it's fine.
I just have a small remarks (see below).
> @@ -1945,13 +1953,17 @@ static struct token *declaration_list(struct token *token, struct symbol_list **
> static struct token *struct_declaration_list(struct token *token, struct symbol_list **list)
> {
> while (!match_op(token, '}')) {
> - if (!match_op(token, ';'))
> - token = declaration_list(token, list);
> - if (!match_op(token, ';')) {
> - sparse_error(token->pos, "expected ; at end of declaration");
> - break;
> + if (match_ident(token, &_Static_assert_ident))
> + token = parse_static_assert(token, NULL);
I find it better with a 'continue' here
> + else {
so, this 'else' become unneeded and there is no
more needs to move the previous content of the loop
(which help a lot when reviewing patches or when
digging in the history).
-- Luc
--
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
