aaron.ballman added a comment. In D122341#3403587 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122341#3403587>, @erichkeane wrote:
> Other than this 1 thing, LGTM. I DO find myself wondering how much of the > CXXMethodDecl bit in the branch above is valid for 'naked' as well. If it > ISN'T we might consider moving this loop AND that to EmitFunctionPrologue. There's a different kind of bug there. MSVC disallows using the `naked` attribute on a member function. Clang doesn't enforce this: https://godbolt.org/z/6jKGbzYTq GCC has no such restriction, but GCC doesn't have many diagnostics in this area anyway. We may want to reconsider whether allowing the naked attribute on a non static member function is a good idea. We probably don't want to allow it in MS compatibility mode at the very least. But I think this can be a change for another day. WDYT? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp:1200 + if (!FD || !FD->hasAttr<NakedAttr>()) { + for (FunctionArgList::const_iterator i = Args.begin(), e = Args.end(); + i != e; ++i) { ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > Since you're touching it... this looks like a 'range-for' loop :D Sure, I can do that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122341/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
