From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.14]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A0143858D35 for ; Tue, 14 May 2024 23:23:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6A0143858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 6A0143858D35 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.198.163.14 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715729026; cv=none; b=JqA/75YVF4jSNladzicdRrtwFDtwhTWjXSUWfvWhSjGtJ3rZtECeLEawnjDgrmWO+w7M5TWkSMhsil5eB3Q8DDn+V8S70ft1QPjJHxkjXPGFvQwZagngAlMRBdZTu2MP+dj0xXksMgD9tM95GZm0NHMAzIL3OWLS3FTLchfKFrQ= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715729026; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SOPtgq65M20srjiweb2DQnGG45Mnh6vtcobbRbUEJbQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=MuX1neBhYrgm94yihmoP7ey27uXzK5qAYxtYuq/UD/Wa79qf/QEok7Sk0kziry4iKqO/hS7716CBpkvrKqU+MUFOnWaBISf9RjaVttkvCtxHwZfdK0rH37wUyAXrH2DN5ZyhbwaoYM8DUjHkdOc/wHwk/sMHwMRbQrxKEpYL/zI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1715729016; x=1747265016; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SOPtgq65M20srjiweb2DQnGG45Mnh6vtcobbRbUEJbQ=; b=Wj+sFpXuO0Wi9pLktotVdl+dxp1yK+ImKsP1Lw4UQPzngnQE/EB6XT8s 11UQCD/LF5dZiGhOudebBCwQQI2FLdsK4abIQ17wrflNa8+KifbpaI6WP g3umtOByr7QVg2DQWsZPQGc22aFFFG1Lq5GRrBhVue6wnksnHx+8L/5JJ GjQc0BEKXNN+mm4NwfkSzvmcSM1w5JgDytJfJlxsfMT+iOoB5Ko/tRVK0 KiSwdjoxuvnGUlj9uayRD99FRPQrxAqGk4AKZgG7R9SeaX0u22Uib9Sef W+X/Y62YuOBOzLCHrdbCx2YEbX62pzcMav5nylDvqjpSldHtaeAxkANYS w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: JAd5H2TeRPipZnA3UN1/dw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: CHqecDxxR+edgjLNebcKpg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11073"; a="11967045" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,160,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="11967045" Received: from orviesa007.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.147]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 May 2024 16:23:35 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: v8S8yNVASDCNRAKNKpMYqQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: e87MGzpCQyqssmaID3zX9Q== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,160,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="31416314" Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo) ([10.54.38.190]) by orviesa007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 May 2024 16:23:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:23:34 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] C++: Support clang compatible [[musttail]] (PR83324) Message-ID: References: <20240505181458.2903045-1-ak@linux.intel.com> <20240505181458.2903045-2-ak@linux.intel.com> <13a46de1-6551-4ff4-abac-2269e587d857@redhat.com> <018be9ad-e6e8-47f8-85c3-e830599ada39@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <018be9ad-e6e8-47f8-85c3-e830599ada39@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > > > You need a template testcase; I expect it doesn't work in templates with the > > > current patch. It's probably enough to copy it in tsubst_expr where we > > > currently propagate CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX. > > > > I tried it with the appended test case, everything seems to work without > > changes. > > > > Does it cover the cases you were concerned about? > > Not fully; this testcase doesn't seem to check for errors if tail-call > fails, only whether the syntax is accepted. So it would pass if the > attribute were simply ignored. Okay I'm not clear how I would do that. Pattern match the assembler in a target specific test case? From looking at the assembler output everything got tail converted. > > Did you also see this comment? > > > It seems to me that if we were to pass &std_attrs to > > cp_parser_jump_statement, we could handle this entirely in that function > > rather than adding a flag to finish_return_stmt and check_return_stmt. Yes. I did that change. -Andi