From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9906 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2019 18:15:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9621 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2019 18:15:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-10.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:15:41 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD2E030860B6 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.20.4.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 507F4795B1; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:15:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: GCC Patches , Jason Merrill Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/60364 - noreturn after first decl not diagnosed (v3) Message-ID: <20190617181521.GS5989@redhat.com> References: <20190615142917.GI5989@redhat.com> <20190615143326.GK19695@tucnak> <20190615143913.GJ5989@redhat.com> <20190616161037.GK5989@redhat.com> <20190616161856.GL19695@tucnak> <20190616163658.GL5989@redhat.com> <20190617154823.GU19695@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190617154823.GU19695@tucnak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00982.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 12:36:58PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 06:18:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 12:10:37PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > > Guess I will really have to make the changes to treat [[noreturn]] similarly > > > > > to e.g. [[nodiscard]], so that cxx11_attribute_p works. > > > > > > > > Thus. Changes I've made: > > > > * don't treat [[noreturn]] as an equivalent to __attribute__((noreturn)); > > > > * for that I had to adjust decl_attributes, it wasn't preserving the > > > > C++11 form (a list in another list); fix shadowing while at it; > > > > * the above turned up two spots that were wrongly accessing TREE_PURPOSE > > > > directly instead of using get_attribute_name; > > > > * give error only for [[noreturn]] but not for __attribute__((noreturn)) > > > > or [[gnu::noreturn]]. > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > > > I'd prefer to defer review of this to Jason, just want to note that I don't > > > see any testsuite coverage on mixing declarations with different forms of > > > attributes ([[noreturn]] on one decl and __attribute__((noreturn)) or > > > [[gnu::noreturn]] on another one or vice versa. > > > > Added now. I suppose it should compile fine, which it does. > > I meant also the tests of the new diagnostics, say if you have > a decl without any of those attributes, then gnu:: one (or __attribute__ > one; that merge decls should be ok) and on third decl [[noreturn]] (shall > that diagnose anything or not? As there is no way to differentiate it from > the gnu:: attribute on the very first one, I'd say it shouldn't, with the > use of the gnu:: or __attribute__ we are already outside of the standard. I've added noreturn-11.C for that. With my patch we don't diagnose void f1 (); void f1 [[gnu::noreturn]] (); void f1 [[noreturn]] (); but that seems fine to me, too. Of course there's the problem that we only check the previous decl, not the first one, but I guess we'll have to live with it; it will detect the bogus cases anyway. -- Marek Polacek • Red Hat, Inc. • 300 A St, Boston, MA