On 07/26/2012 11:19 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+// Example taken from dcl.attr.grammar:
+
+int p[10];
+void f()
+{
+ int x = 42, y[5];
+ /* Here, the '[[gnu::' should have introduced an attribute, ont a
+ lambda invocation an array subscripting expression. */
+ int(p[[gnu::x] { return x; }()]); // { dg-error "expected|consecutive" }
+ /* Likewise, the '[[gnu::' is invalid here. */
+ y[[gnu::] { return 2; }()] = 2; // { dg-error "expected|consecutive" }
The example in the standard doesn't have gnu:: in it. Search and
replace error?
+ if (cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_SQUARE, RT_CLOSE_SQUARE) == NULL
+ || cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_SQUARE, RT_CLOSE_SQUARE) ==
NULL)
Let's use ! rather than == NULL so that these lines fit in 80 chars.
+ /* If E is a constant, fold it and return it right away.
+ Otherwise, build an ALIGNOF_EXPR that will be substituted
+ into, later at template instantiation time. */
+ tree cst = TYPE_P (e) ? NULL_TREE : cxx_constant_value (e);
I think you want fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae rather than
cxx_constant_value.
+ /*
+ [dcl.align]/3
Extra newline.
+int **** [[gnu::format(printf, 1, 2)]] foo(const char *, ...);
This seems wrong; you can't apply the format attribute to a pointer type.
About your earlier question on IRC, the solution to the problem you're
having with
struct A {int i;} [[gnu::aligned(16)]] a;
is that C++11 attributes after the closing brace should not be passed to
finish_struct. Instead, we should apply them to the type (without
TYPE_IN_PLACE) after the type is complete.
+typedef union { int i; } U [[gnu::transparent_union]];
For the same reason, this should also be rejected; the testcase should
put the attribute before the opening brace. We accept this with
GNU-style attributes for backward compatibility, but there's no reason
to propagate that lossage into the new syntax.
+template<typename T> struct A
+{
+ void foo() const;
+} [[gnu::aligned(4)]];
Likewise.
+ typedef void ([[gnu::__stdcall__]] T::*F) (L*);
I don't think a C++11 attribute can appear in this position. I think it
should be
typedef void (T::*F)(L*) [[gnu::__stdcall__]]
+ virtual void [[gnu::__stdcall__]] A(L *listener) = 0;
Similarly, here the stdcall attribute appertains to "void", which makes
no sense.
+S [[gnu::__stdcall__]] getS();
+extern int * ([[gnu::stdcall]] *fooPtr)( void);
+int * [[gnu::stdcall]] myFn01( void) { return 0; }
Likewise.
+ typedef [[gnu::aligned (16)]] struct {
This also seems ill-formed, as there are no type-specifiers before the
attribute, so there's nothing for it to appertain to.
+int
+[[gnu::noreturn]]
+[[gnu::unused]]
+one(void); // OK
noreturn doesn't make sense for "int". Nor does unused, really. C++11
attributes that appertain to the function must either come before any
specifiers or after the declarator.
+template
+[[gnu::packed]]
+struct A<int>; // { dg-warning "attribute" }
Here the patch is giving the wrong warning; it complains about applying
the attribute to A<int>, but actually we should be warning about an
attribute that would appertain to all the declarators in a declaration
with no declarators for it to appertain to.
+[[gnu::deprecated]] enum E { E0 }; // { dg-warning "attribute ignored in
declaration of" }
+// { dg-message "must follow the" "" { target *-*-* } 3 }
Same here.
+ if (strcmp (attr_name, IDENTIFIER_POINTER (get_attribute_name
(list))) == 0)
+ gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CODE (get_attribute_name (list)) ==
IDENTIFIER_NODE);
+ for (a = lookup_ident_attribute (get_attribute_name (a2),
attributes);
+ a = lookup_ident_attribute (get_attribute_name (a2),
TREE_CHAIN (a)))
Line too long.
+ /* A given attribute has been parsed as a C++-11 generalized
+ attribute. */
Let's drop the word "generalized" throughout the patch. I don't see how
these attributes are any more generalized than GNU attributes; we should
just describe them as C++11 attributes.
+cxx_11_attribute_p (const_tree attr)
Let's change cxx_11 to cxx11.
Jason
