================
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -ast-dump -fblocks | FileCheck %s
+
+// Make sure that the attribute gets parsed and attached to the correct AST
elements.
+
+#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-variable"
+
+//
=========================================================================================
+// Square brackets, true
+
+namespace square_brackets {
+
+// On the type of the FunctionDecl
+void nl_function() [[clang::nonblocking]];
+// CHECK: FunctionDecl {{.*}} nl_function 'void ()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+
+// On the type of the VarDecl holding a function pointer
+void (*nl_func_a)() [[clang::nonblocking]];
+// CHECK: VarDecl {{.*}} nl_func_a 'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+
+// On the type of the ParmVarDecl of a function parameter
+static void nlReceiver(void (*nl_func)() [[clang::nonblocking]]);
+// CHECK: ParmVarDecl {{.*}} nl_func 'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+
+// As an AttributedType within the nested types of a typedef
+typedef void (*nl_fp_type)() [[clang::nonblocking]];
+// CHECK: TypedefDecl {{.*}} nl_fp_type 'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+using nl_fp_talias = void (*)() [[clang::nonblocking]];
+// CHECK: TypeAliasDecl {{.*}} nl_fp_talias 'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+
+// From a typedef or typealias, on a VarDecl
+nl_fp_type nl_fp_var1;
+// CHECK: VarDecl {{.*}} nl_fp_var1 'nl_fp_type':'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+nl_fp_talias nl_fp_var2;
+// CHECK: VarDecl {{.*}} nl_fp_var2 'nl_fp_talias':'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+
+// On type of a FieldDecl
+struct Struct {
+ void (*nl_func_field)() [[clang::nonblocking]];
+// CHECK: FieldDecl {{.*}} nl_func_field 'void (*)()
__attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
+};
+
+// nonallocating should be subsumed into nonblocking
+void nl1() [[clang::nonblocking]] [[clang::nonallocating]];
+// CHECK: FunctionDecl {{.*}} nl1 'void () __attribute__((clang_nonblocking))'
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
Right; I suppose that ties back to the fact that our handling of
`AttributedType`s isn’t exactly ideal in my experience at least (see [this
comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983#issuecomment-2048239663)).
As I see it, the second option would be ‘better’ in that that’s literally the
reason why `AttributedType`s exist, but if the first option is easier to do
then I’d go w/ that for the time being and we can come back to this later as
part of a general `AttributedType`s refactor.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
