[TxMt] C functions not getting tagged correctly?

[Matt Fago]

On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
>
> The WIP C/C++ grammar is matching the full structure of your source  
> code, there are 3 “concerns”:
>
>  1. It is more fragile (since an unforeseen or wrongly matched  
> structure can throw it off).
>  2. It is somewhat slower than the regular grammar.
>  3. It doesn’t have as good support for the #if 0/1 … #else …  
> #endif as the original grammar (since that structure is orthogonal  
> with the structure of the actual C/C++ code).
>
> Number 1 just means it needs testing to the point where I am  
> confident it works :)
>
> As for #2 and #3, for #2 we can only wait for TM 2.0 to really get  
> that addressed and #3 either requires a lot of duplication in the  
> grammar or also that we wait for TM 2.0 -- but as there is no ETA  
> on TM 2.0, the question is if the demand for the improvements  
> outweigh the tradeoffs, we haven’t really decided that, in the end  
> I guess it is my call, and I am thinking we should make it trunk  
> maybe in 1-2 months.

As a comment on the WIP C syntax: it seems to mark declarations as  
well as definitions as functions. Not as big of a deal as missing  
definitions, but probably not ultimately desirable.  E.g.:

int testfn(int a);
int testfn(int a) {
...
}

leads to two "testfn" listings in the symbol menu. This may occur  
when one has static functions, etc.


Thanks,
Matt