On 01/09/14 06:02, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/08/14 02:05, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
All,
I was looking at PR49718. I have enclosed a simple fix for this bug report.
2014-01-07 Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfo...@st.com>
* c-family/c-common.c (handle_no_instrument_function_attribute): Allow
no_instrument_function attribute in class member
definition/declaration.
Looking at the implementation of the function attributes, I see no
reason anymore to keep this error message.
Let me know if I missed something.
I have also added a testcase in the enclosed patch.
2014-01-07 Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfo...@st.com>
PR c++/49718
* g++.dg/pr49718.C: New
Isn't the idea here that if we've already generated the function body
(presumably with instrumentation) that a no-instrument attribute
appearing on a later declaration won't do anything useful?
jeff
Jeff,
You are right. That's probably the reason.
From what i can see, the code instrumentation is performed in the
gimplification pass (gimplify_function_tree), and the function attribute
is handled and attached earlier in the parsing phase.
I ve checked with an example like :
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
int foo () {
return 2;
}
int bar () {
return 1;
}
int foo () __attribute__((no_instrument_function));
---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
The attribute is well honored on foo function.
I might need to add this test case too.
Let me know if fix is ok.
Thanks
Laurent
