genksyms: restrict direct-abstract-declarator to take one parameter-type-list

While there is no more grammatical ambiguity in genksyms, the parser
logic is still inaccurate.

For example, genksyms accepts the following invalid C code:

    void my_func(int ()(int));

This should result in a syntax error because () cannot be reduced to
<direct-abstract-declarator>.

( <abstract-declarator> ) can be reduced, but <abstract-declarator>
must not be empty in the following grammar from K&R [1]:

  <direct-abstract-declarator> ::=  ( <abstract-declarator> )
                                 | {<direct-abstract-declarator>}? [ {<constant-expression>}? ]
                                 | {<direct-abstract-declarator>}? ( {<parameter-type-list>}? )

Furthermore, genksyms accepts the following weird code:

    void my_func(int (*callback)(int)(int)(int));

The parser allows <direct-abstract-declarator> to recursively absorb
multiple ( {<parameter-type-list>}? ), but this behavior is incorrect.

In the example above, (*callback) should be followed by at most one
(int).

[1]: https://cs.wmich.edu/~gupta/teaching/cs4850/sumII06/The%20syntax%20of%20C%20in%20Backus-Naur%20form.htm



Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Schier <n.schier@avm.de>