aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:1435 + let Spellings = [GCC<"leaf">]; + let Subjects = SubjectList<[Function]>; + let Documentation = [Undocumented]; ---------------- gulfem wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > gulfem wrote: > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gulfem wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should this attribute also be supported on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things like ObjC method decls or other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > function-like interfaces? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I need to do anything else to support this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attribute in Objective-C as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support it in all the C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > languages family. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think we should support it in all the C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >languages family. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's already happening automatically -- there's a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C and C++ spelling available for it and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attribute doesn't specify that it requires a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular language mode or target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I need to do anything else to support this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attribute in Objective-C as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can add multiple subjects to the list here, so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can have this apply to `Function, ObjCMethod` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for both of those. Another one to consider is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether this attribute can be written on a block > > > > > > > > > > > > > > declaration (like a lambda, but with different > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax). Beyond that, it's mostly just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, devising the test cases to ensure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ObjC functionality behaves as expected, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly some codegen changes, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK, users can specify function attributes in > > > > > > > > > > > > > lambda expressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lambda functions can only be accessed/called by the > > > > > > > > > > > > > functions in the same translation unit, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Leaf attribute does not have any effect on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > functions that are defined in the same translation > > > > > > > > > > > > > unit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For this reason, I'm thinking that leaf attribute > > > > > > > > > > > > > would not have any effect if they are used in lambda > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK, users can specify function attributes in > > > > > > > > > > > > > lambda expressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always forget that you can do that for declaration > > > > > > > > > > > > attributes using GNU-style syntax... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lambda functions can only be accessed/called by the > > > > > > > > > > > > > functions in the same translation unit, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily, you could pass one across TU > > > > > > > > > > > > boundaries like a function pointer, for instance. e.g., > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > // TU1.cpp > > > > > > > > > > > > void foo() { > > > > > > > > > > > > auto l = []() { ... }; > > > > > > > > > > > > bar(l); > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > // TU2.cpp > > > > > > > > > > > > void bar(auto func) { > > > > > > > > > > > > func(); > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily, you could pass one across TU > > > > > > > > > > > > boundaries like a function pointer, for instance. e.g., > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned before, leaf attribute is specifically > > > > > > > > > > > intended for library functions and I think all the > > > > > > > > > > > existing usage of leaf attribute is in the library > > > > > > > > > > > function declarations. For this reason, I think we do not > > > > > > > > > > > need to support them for lambdas. Is that reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For this reason, I think we do not need to support them > > > > > > > > > > > for lambdas. Is that reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this considered a library function? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > struct S { > > > > > > > > > > void f(); // Is this a library function? > > > > > > > > > > void operator()(); // How about this? > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is "no", then I think we only need to support > > > > > > > > > > `FunctionDecl` and nothing else (not even `ObjCMethodDecl`, > > > > > > > > > > which is like a member function for ObjC). If the answer is > > > > > > > > > > "yes", then it's not clear to me whether lambdas should or > > > > > > > > > > should not be supported given that the attribute on the > > > > > > > > > > lambda expression is attached to the function call operator > > > > > > > > > > for the lambda declaration. > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is "no", then I think we only need to support > > > > > > > > > > `FunctionDecl` and nothing else (not even `ObjCMethodDecl`, > > > > > > > > > > which is like a member function for ObjC). If the answer is > > > > > > > > > > "yes", then it's not clear to me whether lambdas should or > > > > > > > > > > should not be supported given that the attribute on the > > > > > > > > > > lambda expression is attached to the function call operator > > > > > > > > > > for the lambda declaration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point @aaron.ballman. I would say the second one > > > > > > > > > is not really a library function. > > > > > > > > > @jdoerfert also suggested to allow leaf attribute only on > > > > > > > > > declarations. > > > > > > > > > I can add FunctionDecl, so we only allow leaf attribute on > > > > > > > > > function declarations, not on function definitions or member > > > > > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > > Does that sound good to both of you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point @aaron.ballman. I would say the second one > > > > > > > > > is not really a library function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel like either they both are or they both aren't, but it's > > > > > > > > a question of how this attribute is intended to be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jdoerfert also suggested to allow leaf attribute only on > > > > > > > > > declarations. > > > > > > > > > I can add FunctionDecl, so we only allow leaf attribute on > > > > > > > > > function declarations, not on function definitions or member > > > > > > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > > Does that sound good to both of you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've come around to that approach, but `FunctionDecl` > > > > > > > > represents any declaration of a function, including a > > > > > > > > definition. So you'll probably want to add a new > > > > > > > > `SubsetSubject` in `Attr.td` to represent a function > > > > > > > > declaration that's not a definition (and we could potentially > > > > > > > > reuse that subject for a few other attributes that can't be > > > > > > > > written on a definition). You can use > > > > > > > > `FunctionDecl::isThisDeclarationADefinition()` to distinguish > > > > > > > > between declarations and definitions. > > > > > > > > I feel like either they both are or they both aren't, but it's > > > > > > > > a question of how this attribute is intended to be used. > > > > > > > Sorry for being vague, and please let me try to clarify that. > > > > > > > What I meant was that existing leaf attribute cases are not like > > > > > > > the cases that you provided. > > > > > > > It is used in library function declarations in Fuchsia and other > > > > > > > existing use cases. > > > > > > > Are we ok banning this attribute in function definitions in clang > > > > > > > even though this behavior is different than other compilers (GCC, > > > > > > > ICC, etc.)? > > > > > > > If yes, I will incorporate the changes that you are suggesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for being vague, and please let me try to clarify that. > > > > > > > What I meant was that existing leaf attribute cases are not like > > > > > > > the cases that you provided. > > > > > > > It is used in library function declarations in Fuchsia and other > > > > > > > existing use cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I think I'm on the same page as you now -- this attribute is > > > > > > most frequently written on free functions (ones that are not class > > > > > > members). However, I don't see a reason to disallow the attribute > > > > > > on a class member function though, or am I misunderstanding > > > > > > something? (GCC and ICC both seem to allow it on a class member > > > > > > function.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we ok banning this attribute in function definitions in clang > > > > > > > even though this behavior is different than other compilers (GCC, > > > > > > > ICC, etc.)? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's okay to *ban* use of this attribute on function > > > > > > definitions (e.g., we shouldn't reject the user's code) because > > > > > > that will make porting code more difficult, but I think diagnosing > > > > > > as a warning is reasonable.. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I think should happen: Let's drop the support for > > > > > > `ObjCMethodDecl` as that support can be added later if we find use > > > > > > cases that need it (this will make CodeGen easier in this patch). > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's use a custom subject so that the attribute can only be > > > > > > written on a function declaration (which will automatically include > > > > > > member functions) but continue to not pass `ErrorDiag` in the > > > > > > `SubjectList` (so that we continue to warn rather than err if the > > > > > > subject is a function definition). > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's not support blocks or lambdas unless a user comes up with use > > > > > > cases for it, but let's add tests to ensure that the behavior of > > > > > > the attribute on those is not harmful since the implicit methods > > > > > > generated for them may be a bit strange. For instance, the `alias` > > > > > > attribute cannot be written on a definition and yet: > > > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/vbbxKj To be clear -- I think the default > > > > > > behavior you get from the suggested `SubjectList` changes will be > > > > > > fine, but if it turns out that adding this attribute on a > > > > > > definition through a lambda causes harm (UB, crashes, etc) then we > > > > > > may have to put in extra effort to explicitly disallow it there. > > > > > > > > > > > > And then add plenty of Sema tests for all of this so we're > > > > > > explicitly testing the behaviors we care about. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that sound reasonable to you? > > > > > > Okay, I think I'm on the same page as you now -- this attribute is > > > > > > most frequently written on free functions (ones that are not class > > > > > > members). However, I don't see a reason to disallow the attribute > > > > > > on a class member function though, or am I misunderstanding > > > > > > something? (GCC and ICC both seem to allow it on a class member > > > > > > function.) > > > > > Your understanding is right. Technically, leaf attributes should be > > > > > able to be used in methods as well. > > > > > However, I'm not aware of such existing cases. > > > > > As you suggested, I think we can extend leaf attribute support to > > > > > methods and lambdas if we encounter such cases later. > > > > > > > > > > > Does that sound reasonable to you? > > > > > It sounds great! I agree with the plan, and I'll upload the changes > > > > > in that direction. > > > > > > > > > @aaron.ballman I just added a simple rule for function declarations > > > > only. > > > > ``` > > > > def FunctionDeclOnly : SubsetSubject<Function, > > > > [{!S->isThisDeclarationADefinition()}], > > > > "function declaration only">; > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > I used that one in the leaf attribute definition: > > > > ``` > > > > def Leaf : InheritableAttr { > > > > let Spellings = [GCC<"leaf">]; > > > > let Subjects = SubjectList<[FunctionDeclOnly]>; > > > > let Documentation = [LeafDocs]; > > > > let SimpleHandler = 1; > > > > } > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > I thought that this will be straightforward, but after testing it on > > > > the following definition, surprisingly I did not get a warning. > > > > I was expecting to get `function declaration only` warning. > > > > ``` > > > > __attribute__((leaf)) void f() > > > > { > > > > } > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > After some debugging, I think this is what's happening: > > > > When we parse the function attributes, body is not parsed yet. > > > > As the following comment states in `isThisDeclarationADefinition` > > > > function, it returns false even for a definition. > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > /// Note: the function declaration does not become a definition until > > > > the > > > > /// parser reaches the definition, if called before, this function > > > > will return > > > > /// `false`. > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > Do you have any suggestions? Is there anything that I'm missing? > > > @aaron.ballman did you have a chance to take a look at my comment? > > Sorry about the delay in getting back to you on this (holiday schedule + C > > standards meetings got in the way of doing some reviews). > > > > Ugh, that's a good point -- we've not seen the function body by the time > > we're processing attributes, so we don't know whether to diagnose or not. I > > can think of two ways forward: > > > > 0) Not diagnose when the attribute is written on a function definition. > > 1) Add some code to Sema::ActOnFinishFunctionBody to diagnose if the > > attribute appears on the declaration. However, I'm not certain if there's > > an easy way to distinguish between an attribute on the definition and an > > attribute inherited from the definition. e.g., > > > > ``` > > [[gnu::leaf]] void func(void); > > void func(void) { } // hasAttr<LeafAttr> on this will return true > > ``` > > I'm pretty sure that `Attr::isInherited()` reports whether the attribute > > should be inherited, not whether it actually has been inherited, so #1 > > could be tricky. > > > > Personally, I'm fine with #0 if it turns out that #1 is painful. > > @jdoerfert, are you okay with that? > > Personally, I'm fine with #0 if it turns out that #1 is painful. > > @jdoerfert, are you okay with that? > Would that be ok if we land this patch without diagnosing a warning, and work > on a diagnosis patch later? > > I'd be fine with that! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits