Hi Jakub, On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:47:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > @@ -1747,6 +1737,8 @@ static struct c_expr c_parser_binary_expression > > (c_parser *, struct c_expr *, > > tree); > > static struct c_expr c_parser_cast_expression (c_parser *, struct > > c_expr *); > > static struct c_expr c_parser_unary_expression (c_parser *); > > +static inline struct c_expr c_parser_sizeof_expression (c_parser *); > > +static inline struct c_expr c_parser_countof_expression (c_parser *); > > I don't see the point of the above (unless they are defined after first > use,
They are indeed defined after first use.
> but then it would be better to define them before the first use).
Moving them before the first use would separate them from
c_parser_sizeof_or_countof_expression(), which is their closest
relative. I find them more organized this way. Please confirm what I
should do.
Cheers,
Alex
>
> > static struct c_expr c_parser_sizeof_or_countof_expression (c_parser *,
> > enum rid);
> > static struct c_expr c_parser_alignof_expression (c_parser *);
> > @@ -10627,6 +10619,22 @@ c_parser_unary_expression (c_parser *parser)
> >
> > /* Parse a sizeof expression. */
> >
> > +static inline struct c_expr
> > +c_parser_sizeof_expression (c_parser *parser)
> > +{
> > + return c_parser_sizeof_or_countof_expression (parser, RID_SIZEOF);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Parse a _Countof expression. */
> > +
> > +static inline struct c_expr
> > +c_parser_countof_expression (c_parser *parser)
> > +{
> > + return c_parser_sizeof_or_countof_expression (parser, RID_COUNTOF);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Parse a sizeof or _Countof expression. */
> > +
>
> This looks good to me (but Joseph or Marek should have the final say in C
> FE).
>
> Jakub
>
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
