nickdesaulniers planned changes to this revision. nickdesaulniers added a comment.
In D75563#1911375 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563#1911375>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > Thank you for working on this, this LGTM! If you wanted a follow-up patch > beyond adding semantic support for the `inline` keyword, I think it might > make sense to investigate divorcing the qualifier parsing from the `DeclSpec` > interface. These are ASM statements, not declarations, so the fact that we're > using a DeclSpec to smuggle the qualifiers around is a bit unexpected. > However, I don't think that work needs to hold up this patch. I agree and I think that recommendation is in good taste. I'd rather do things the right way now and hopefully never need to revisit. Also, there's no rush on this. I'll declare a new class for the qualifiers, since we just need to know which qualifiers were used (what is essentially 3 booleans) and strings for each. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
