The syntax rules for ptr-operator allow attributes after *, &,
&&, therefore we should be able to parse the following:
void fn() {
void (*[[attr]] x)() = &fn;
void (&[[attr]] y)() = fn;
void (&&[[attr]] z)() = fn;
}
However the current logic in TryParsePtrOperatorSeq does not consider
the presence of attributes leading to unexpected parsing errors.
Moreover we should also consider _Atomic a possible qualifier that can
appear after the sequence of attribute specifiers.
Keep looking for decl-specifiers after an unknown identifier. Don't
issue diagnostics about an error type specifier conflicting with later
type specifiers.
llvm-svn: 360117
statement starts with an identifier for which name lookup will fail either way,
look at later tokens to disambiguate in order to improve error recovery.
llvm-svn: 162464
parser is looking at a declaration or an expression, use a '=' to
conclude that we are parsing a declaration.
This is wrong. However, our previous approach of finding a comma after
the '=' is also wrong, because the ',' could be part of a
template-argument-list. So, for now we're going to use the same wrong
heuristic as GCC and Visual C++, because less real-world code is
likely to be broken this way. I've opened PR7655 to keep track of our
wrongness; note also the XFAIL'd test.
Fixes <rdar://problem/8193163>.
llvm-svn: 108459
Michele Scandale