On 19 Nov 2016 2:36 am, "Anton Bikineev" <ant.bikin...@gmail.com> wrote:
AntonBikineev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Lex/LiteralSupport.cpp:1716-1717
+StringLiteralParser::UDSuffixResult
+StringLiteralParser::isValidUDSuffix(const LangOptions &LangOpts,
+ StringRef Suffix) {
+ if (!LangOpts.CPlusPlus11 || Suffix.empty())
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Just make this call `NumericLiteralParser::isValidUDSuffix` and then
check for the `sv` case. All the numeric suffixes are also valid string
literal suffixes for the form `operator""suffix`.
This makes sense for the call sites we currently have.
> All the numeric suffixes are also valid string literal suffixes for the
form operator""suffix.
Don't really understand this part. It seems inconsistent if one calls, say,
``` StringLiteralParser::isValidUDSuffix(LangOpts(), "if") ```
and gets
```true```
That is valid in the case of `operator ""if`, so `if` is a valid string
literal suffix (as is any numeric literal suffix).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26829
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
