[PATCH 3/5] widl: Support WinRT mta threading attribute parsing.

[Rémi Bernon]

On 1/25/21 12:17 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> Hi Rémi,
> 
> 
> On 19/01/2021 14:04, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/widl/parser.l b/tools/widl/parser.l
>> index 01c6f800a08..067966a85d4 100644
>> --- a/tools/widl/parser.l
>> +++ b/tools/widl/parser.l
>> @@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ static const struct keyword attr_keywords[] =
>>       {"marshaling_behavior",         tMARSHALINGBEHAVIOR,        1},
>>       {"maybe",                       tMAYBE,                     0},
>>       {"message",                     tMESSAGE,                   0},
>> +    {"mta" ,                        tMTA,                       1},
>>       {"neutral",                     tNEUTRAL,                   0},
>>       {"nocode",                      tNOCODE,                    0},
>>       {"nonbrowsable",                tNONBROWSABLE,              0},
> 
> 
> I think that currently threading attribute is used only as widl 
> extension for registration code. It probably predates midl winrt, but it 
> looks like it's mostly compatible. Maybe we should make the extension 
> more compatible with winrt, eg. migrate our code to use 'mta' instead or 
> 'free' (instead of making mta winrt-only)?
> 

Ah sorry, I missed your message and resent the series with just the 
comments removed. I guess if there's some refactoring to be done it can 
still be done later and remove the WinRT-only flag?

> 
> Also, as Zebediah pointed out, generated header comments are not 
> necessarily something we want. At very least, you could extract those 
> parts of the series into a separated patch so we can discus it from 
> there. They don't really belong to parsing part of their support anyway. 
> FWIW, as header/IDL user, I think that the right place to look for those 
> things are IDL files, not generated headers, so comments there are not 
> very useful anyway. If we want to provide more informational comments in 
> headers, I would suggest to print IDL attributes in IDL syntax in 
> comments instead.
> 
Yes, I removed them. I don't think they are very useful anyway, they are 
simply used to translate the IDL attributes into something readable in 
the generated header.
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>