On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
the original behavior for the positional argument validation
(i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
discussed.
I thought Jason wanted to also warn for scoped enums in C++.
I missed that. It seems needlessly restrictive to me to reject
the preferred kind of an enum when ordinary enums are accepted.
Jason, can you confirm that you really want a warning for B
below when there is none for A (GCC 8 doesn't complain about
either, Clang complains about both, ICC about neither when
using alloc_size -- it doesn't understand alloc_align):
enum A { /* ... */ };
__attribute__ ((alloc_align (1))) void* f (A);
enum class B { /* ... */ };
__attribute__ ((alloc_align (1))) void* g (B);
The only use case I can think of for enums is in APIs that try
to restrict the available choices of alignment to those of
the enumerators. In that use case, I would expect it to make
no difference whether the enum is ordinary or the scoped kind.
+ else if (code == INTEGER_TYPE)
+ /* For integers, accept enums, wide characters and other types
+ that match INTEGRAL_TYPE_P except for bool. */
+ type_match = (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (argtype)
+ && TREE_CODE (argtype) != BOOLEAN_TYPE);
So it would better be:
type_match = (TREE_CODE (argtype) == INTEGER_TYPE
|| (TREE_CODE (argtype) == ENUMERAL_TYPE
&& !ENUM_IS_SCOPED (argtype)));
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 266966)
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -2471,7 +2471,9 @@ The @code{aligned} attribute can also be used for
@item alloc_align (@var{position})
@cindex @code{alloc_align} function attribute
The @code{alloc_align} attribute may be applied to a function that
-returns a pointer and takes at least one argument of an integer type.
+returns a pointer and takes at least one argument of an integer or
+enumerated type, but not @code{bool}. Arguments of other types are
+diagnosed.
The keyword is _Bool in C, so wouldn't it be better to say but not Boolean
type or but not @code{bool} or @code{_Bool}?
It makes little difference. Established practice in the manual
is @code{bool} (14 occurrences). There are just three instances
of @code{_Bool} in prose in doc/*.texi. It's simpler to refer
to @code{bool} unless we are specifically talking about the C
keyword/type.
Martin
