From: Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfonsi@st.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49718 : allow no_instrument_function attribute in class member definition/declaration
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52D64C0B.4060005@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52CEAF7B.7010101@st.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1703 bytes --]
Ping ? Ok for trunk ?
On 01/09/14 15:17, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
> 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
[-- Attachment #2: Fix-PR49718-allow-no_instrument_function-attribute-i.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2524 bytes --]
From 141d2bcfeab5e0635c7f4e362387fd5b1b9494e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laurent ALFONSI <laurent.alfonsi@st.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:26:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix PR49718 : allow no_instrument_function attribute in class
member definition/declaration
---
gcc/c-family/c-common.c | 6 ------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49718.C | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49718.C
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
index 8ecb70c..17fcb0d 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
@@ -7929,12 +7929,6 @@ handle_no_instrument_function_attribute (tree *node, tree name,
"%qE attribute applies only to functions", name);
*no_add_attrs = true;
}
- else if (DECL_INITIAL (decl))
- {
- error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (decl),
- "can%'t set %qE attribute after definition", name);
- *no_add_attrs = true;
- }
else
DECL_NO_INSTRUMENT_FUNCTION_ENTRY_EXIT (decl) = 1;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49718.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49718.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07cac8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49718.C
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -finstrument-functions" } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "__cyg_profile_func_enter" 1} } */
+
+#define NOINSTR __attribute__((no_instrument_function))
+
+struct t
+{
+ public:
+ /* Function code should be instrumented */
+ __attribute__((noinline)) t() {}
+
+ /* Function t::a() should not be instrumented */
+ NOINSTR void a(){
+ }
+ /* Function t::b() should not be instrumented */
+ void NOINSTR b(){
+ }
+ /* Function t::c() should not be instrumented */
+ void c() NOINSTR {
+ }
+ /* Function t::d() should not be instrumented */
+ void d() NOINSTR;
+};
+
+void t::d()
+{
+}
+
+/* Function call_all_functions() should not be instrumented */
+struct t call_all_functions() __attribute__((no_instrument_function));
+struct t call_all_functions()
+{
+ struct t a; /* Constructor not inlined */
+ a.a(); /* Inlined t::a() should not be instrumented */
+ a.b(); /* Inlined t::b() should not be instrumented */
+ a.c(); /* Inlined t::c() should not be instrumented */
+ a.d(); /* Inlined t::d() should not be instrumented */
+ return a;
+}
+
--
1.8.4.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-15 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-08 9:05 Laurent Alfonsi
2014-01-09 5:02 ` Jeff Law
2014-01-09 14:18 ` Laurent Alfonsi
2014-01-15 8:51 ` Laurent Alfonsi [this message]
2014-01-15 19:25 ` Jeff Law
2014-01-16 8:41 ` Laurent Alfonsi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52D64C0B.4060005@st.com \
--to=laurent.alfonsi@st.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).