aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/pragma-attribute-label.c:7
+
+#pragma clang attribute pop // expected-error{{'#pragma clang attribute pop'
with no matching '#pragma clang attribute push'}}
+#pragma clang attribute pop NOT_MY_LABEL // expected-error{{'#pragma clang
attribute pop NOT_MY_LABEL' with no matching '#pragma clang attribute push
NOT_MY_LABEL'}}
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Should we really treat this as an error? It seems to me that this should be
> > a warning because pop without a label could be viewed as "I don't care what
> > I'm popping, just pop it". Still worth warning about, but maybe not worth
> > stopping a build over.
> IMO this is most likely to be an implementation error on the part of a macro
> author, where the END macro is missing the label used in BEGIN. This makes
> the macro pair unsafe to mix with other macros. If the macro author doesn’t
> want safety, why use a label in the BEGIN macro at all?
>
> I see you’re envisioning this being used directly by an end-user, which I
> suppose is plausible, but I think the same logic applies. Why add a label to
> push if you don’t want to be precise about pop?
> Why add a label to push if you don’t want to be precise about pop?
Why is this important enough to fail everyone's build over it as opposed to
warning users that they've done something that could be a bad code smell and
let -Werror usage decide whether to fail the build or not? It seems like an
extreme measure for something that has explicable "fallback" behavior.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/pragma-attribute-label.c:15
+// Out of order!
+#pragma clang attribute pop MY_LABEL
+
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I feel like this should be diagnosed, perhaps even as an error. The user
> > provided labels but then got the push and pop order wrong when explicitly
> > saying what to pop. That seems more likely to be a logic error on the
> > user's part.
> On the contrary, the user is using two differently-named and independent
> macro pairs (A_BEGIN/A_END vs B_BEGIN/B_END) and has no idea they are
> implemented with _Pragma(“clang attribute ...”) under the hood. The point is
> to give the same result as two independent pragma pairs, whose regions do not
> need to be nested.
> On the contrary, the user is using two differently-named and independent
> macro pairs (A_BEGIN/A_END vs B_BEGIN/B_END)
I don't think this is a safe assumption to make, and in this case, is false.
There are no macros anywhere in this test case.
> The point is to give the same result as two independent pragma pairs, whose
> regions do not need to be nested.
I don't find this to be intuitive behavior. These are stack manipulations with
the names push and pop -- pretending that they're overlapping rather than a
stack in the presence of labels is confusing. If I saw the code from this test
case during a code review, I would flag it as being incorrect because the
labels do not match -- I don't think I'd be the only one.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55628/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55628
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
