fun with declarations and definitions

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:19:21PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> IOW, direct_declarator() (which doubles for direct-abstract-declarator) should
> have more than one-bit indication of which case we've got.  Right now it's
> done by "have we passed a non-NULL ident ** to store the identifier being
> declared"; that's not enough.  What we need is explicit 'is that a part of
> parameter declaration' flag; then the rule turns into
> 	if (p && *p)
> 		fn = 1; /* we'd seen identifier already, can't be nested */
> 	else if match_op(next, ')')
> 		fn = 1; /* empty list can't be direct-declarator or
> 			 * direct-abstract-declarator */
> 	else
> 		fn = (in_parameter && lookup_type(next));

Umm...  It's a bit more subtle (p goes NULL after the nested one is
handled), so we need to keep track of "don't allow nested declarator from
that point on" explicitly.  Patch follows:

Subject: [PATCH] Handle nested declarators vs. parameter lists correctly

Seeing a typedef name after ( means that we have a parameter-type-list
only if we are parsing a parameter declaration or a typename; otherwise
it might very well be a redeclaration (e.g. int (T); when T had been a
typedef in outer scope).

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/validation/nested-declarator.c b/validation/nested-declarator.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..24ed833
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/nested-declarator.c
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+typedef int T;
+extern void f(int);
+static void g(int x)
+{
+	int (T);
+	T = x;
+	f(T);
+}
+/*
+ * check-name: nested declarator vs. parameters
+ */