aaron.ballman added a comment.
Missing tests demonstrating use of the C++ spelling of the attribute. Perhaps a
test showing it on a member function would be useful.
Out of curiosity, what would be the expected behavior of the following:
struct B {
int g(int);
[[clang::disable_tail_calls]] virtual int f(int a); // is this okay?
};
struct D : B {
int f(int a) override { // is this okay?
return g(a); // Does this get TCO?
}
};
void f() {
B *b = new D;
b->f(12);
}
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:1683
@@ +1682,3 @@
+ int foo(int a) __attribute__((disable_tail_calls)) {
+ return callee(a); // This call is not tail-call optimized.
+ }
----------------
It would be useful to have a declaration for callee() to make it obvious that
it *could* have been TCOed otherwise.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp:1486
@@ -1484,1 +1485,3 @@
+ (TargetDecl && TargetDecl->hasAttr<DisableTailCallsAttr>()) ||
+ CodeGenOpts.DisableTailCalls;
FuncAttrs.addAttribute("disable-tail-calls",
----------------
I would swap the order of the checks. It's less expensive when
CodeGenOpts.DisableTailCalls is true than it is to call hasAttr().
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12547
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
