ABataev added a comment.
Aaron, thanks for the review!
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:2504
@@ -2493,3 +2503,3 @@
// Availability attribute
def warn_availability_unknown_platform : Warning<
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> >> It would be good to model these new diagnostics after the MIPS interrupt
> >> diagnostics.
> >>
> >> def warn_mips_interrupt_attribute : Warning<
> >> "MIPS 'interrupt' attribute only applies to functions that have "
> >> "%select{no parameters|a 'void' return type}0">,
> >> InGroup<IgnoredAttributes>;
>
> > Ok, will do
>
> This does not appear to have been completed yet.
Probably I did not quite understood your comment. I'll try to fix it and hope
this time I'll get it right. :)
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:4556
@@ +4555,3 @@
+ // e) The 2nd argument (if any) must be an unsigned integer.
+ if (!isFunctionOrMethod(D) || !hasFunctionProto(D) ||
+ !D->getDeclContext()->isFileContext()) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> >> Yes, we allow any non-member functions.
> > Then we should have a test that shows this working with a named namespace
> > interrupt function. Also, it's a bit odd to me that members of named
> > namespaces are fine, but static member functions are not. This disallows
> > possibly-sensible code (like a private static member function of a class
> > for better encapsulation).
>
> I don't see a test using a named namespace with an interrupt function (though
> I do see one disallowing a static member function). Also, I am still
> wondering why there is a restriction against static member functions. (I
> looked at GCC's docs and they do not claim to support this attribute for
> these targets, so I'm not certain what this design is based on.)
See test/CodeGenCXX/attr-x86-interrupt.cpp. Function 'foo8' is declare in
'namespace S'.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/attr-x86-interrupt.cpp:51
@@ +50,3 @@
+template <typename T>
+void bar(T *a) {
+ foo9(a); // expected-error {{interrupt service routine can't be called
directly}}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Ah, I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear with my template request. I was looking
> for something like (in addition to what you've added):
> ```
> template <typename Fn>
> void bar(Fn F) {
> F(nullptr); // Should this diagnose? I expect not.
> }
>
> __attribute__((interrupt)) void foo(int *) {}
> void f() {
> bar(foo);
> }
> ```
Ok, I will add this test case.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15709
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
