erichkeane added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/attr-alwaysinline.cpp:36
+ return x;
+}
+
----------------
craig.topper wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > craig.topper wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > > craig.topper wrote:
> > > > > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > > > > craig.topper wrote:
> > > > > > > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Can you add a test that shows that we warn on instantiation?
> > > > > > > > > This shouldn't be a dependent declrefexpr when instantiated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Additionally, this would make sure that we're properly
> > > > > > > > > propoagating `always_inline`.
> > > > > > > > Should this warn
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > template<int D> [[gnu::noinline]]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > int bar(int x) {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if constexpr (D > 1)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [[clang::always_inline]] return bar<D-1>(x + 1);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return x;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > int baz(int x) {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return bar<5>(x);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Yes, I would expect that to warn.
> > > > > > It looks like handleAlwaysInlineAttr only gets called once so it
> > > > > > doesn't get called after instantiation.
> > > > > Hmm... thats unfortunate. That means we're perhaps not instantiating
> > > > > it correctly. I'll take some time to poke around as I get a chacne.
> > > > Ok, it looks like SemaStmt.cpp's `BuildAttributedStmt` needs to handle
> > > > the attributes. We should some day do that automatically for a
> > > > majority o f attributes, but for now, just adding the call there is
> > > > sufficient.
> > > What I do need to add?
> > You should be able to follow what is already there, but I suspect you just
> > need to call some sort of 'handle' function for those to do this. There is
> > one there already youc an crib off of.
> Can I do that as a separate patch? Fixing the crash seems like a net
> improvement.
I'd prefer they be done together: They are a situation where you cannot
properly test either patch without the other one being fixed, so I believe they
are intrinsically linked.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146089/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146089
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
