================
@@ -2068,7 +2068,8 @@ bool Lexer::LexNumericConstant(Token &Result, const char
*CurPtr) {
}
// If we have a digit separator, continue.
- if (C == '\'' && (LangOpts.CPlusPlus14 || LangOpts.C23)) {
+ if (C == '\'' &&
+ (LangOpts.CPlusPlus14 || LangOpts.C23 || ParsingPreprocessorDirective)) {
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
>> I'm still wondering about the question I asked here:
>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93753#issuecomment-2173666602
> Are there any comments that weren't addressed by
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93753#issuecomment-2204578263?
Oh, thank you for pointing that out, somehow I missed that you commented
(sorry)! I'll keep the discussion over there.
> This doesn't need to scale. We'd only do this for options that control
> lexing. FWIW, code that says "literal digit separators are enabled in C++14+,
> C23+, or when explicitly allowed" seems more logical to me than checking
> ParsingPreprocessorDirective, which doesn't really explain why we're suddenly
> allowing digit separators.
Yeah, this was the bit I think I was missing from the earlier discussion.
Making sure I understand correctly, it's not *all* tokens we need to care
about, it's only ones that matter for scanning of dependencies, which basically
means punctuators, preprocessor directive keywords, and literals? Or do you
mean "control lexing" in terms of what is or isn't a keyword (e.g., `_Atomic`
is a keyword in C and C++ except when OpenCL is enabled)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95798
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
