rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33339#759146, @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> The `check-all` target passes even if the ellipsis-after-declarator-id > disambiguation as a declarator is removed entirely. [...] > So, on the whole, the stray ellipsis treatment is both too complicated and > not complicated enough. I think if we want to keep it, the way to do that would be to carry on through the disambiguation process and treat it as a tiebreaker (that's what we do, for instance, if we see an undeclared identifier in a position where we're looking for a type). I'm not convinced that's worthwhile, especially since our existing testcases do not need this disambiguation rule, but perhaps we could remove the stray ellipsis treatment entirely for now and reconsider adding it back if we find poor diagnostics result from it later? https://reviews.llvm.org/D33339 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
