================
@@ -3862,6 +3878,27 @@ CountAttributedType::CountAttributedType(
DeclSlot[i] = CoupledDecls[i];
}
+StringRef CountAttributedType::GetAttributeName(bool WithMacroPrefix) const {
----------------
delcypher wrote:
> but the way this works for AttributedTypes is that the Attr* is stored in
> the AttributedTypeLoc
How does that help in the general case? If all you have is the `AttributedType`
then you can't get a `AttributedTypeLoc` from that. I suspect that's by design
because I guess an attributed type could be spelled out in multiple locations
in a source file.
> just store it in and then get it from the CountAttributedTypeLoc instead.
Do mean store a `CountAttributedType` pointer in `CountAttributedTypeLoc`?
In general using TypeLocs here seems like it's going to be complicated.
My naive understanding of TypeLocs is that you have to fetch those from
declarations using `getTypeSourceInfo()->getTypeLoc()`, is that right or am I
missing something? This means we'd have the functions that issue diagnostics
traverse expressions to find the relevant decls to find the TypeLocs. That
might be ok for upstream Clang where the attribute is only allowed on
`FieldDecl`s but it's more complicated for our internal fork because the
Attribute is allowed in many more places.
I'm also not sure how that is supposed to work with casts.
```
void test(void) {
int count = 5;
// How would you get a TypeLoc for a the C-style cast below? The cast isn't a
decl.
char* __counted_by(count) ptr = (char* __counted_by(count)) malloc(count);
}
```
If I've understood your suggestion correctly then what you're suggesting does
sound like an improvement (that would also solve the issue this patch has with
trying to get the SourceRange for the attribute) but I think the best way to
proceed here would be to file an issue about this problem and refer to it in a
comment in `CountAttributedType::GetAttributeName` saying that this should be
implemented in a different way. That way landing this patch isn't blocked on
this issue. And once I've landed this PR then I can start looking into how to
fix that issue that is compatible with upstream and our internal fork and then
upstream that.
Does that seem reasonable to you?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106321
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
