erik.pilkington added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParsePragma.cpp:3161
+ if (!Tok.is(tok::period)) {
+ PP.Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::err_pragma_attribute_expected_period)
+ << II;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Can you reuse `diag::err_expected_after` instead of making a new diagnostic?
I was kinda concerned about how we would diagnose a case like this:
```
#pragma clang attribute add (...) // add isn't a thing!
```
A generic diagnostic about the missing `.` would be pretty unhelpful. The
custom diagnostic reads as "expected '.' after pragma attribute namespace
'add'", which makes how the parser interpreted the code a lot more clear.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55628/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55628
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
