Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49718 : allow no_instrument_function attribute in class member definition/declaration

[Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfonsi@st.com>]

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.alfonsi@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.alfonsi@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