Please add the test to some existing test file for the ownership_takes
attribute, such as test/Sema/attr-ownership.c. Otherwise, LGTM.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek <a...@fb.com> wrote:
> Yay! It worked, thank you!
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek <a...@fb.com> wrote:
>
> Same story:
> warning: 'ownership_takes' attribute only applies to functions
> [-Wignored-attributes]
> __attribute__((ownership_takes(__))) void f();
> ^
>
>
> Oh, I see, you're building in C, and the diagnostic here is broken (we
> give the "only applies to functions" diagnostic when it's applied to a
> function without a prototype). =( Aaron, can I tempt you to fix that? ;)
>
> Try this one:
>
> __attribute__((ownership_takes(__, 1))) void f(void*);
>
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek <a...@fb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Adrian Zgorzalek via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> You are right, my bad, I thought this if covers all the cases, but <foo>
> part could be empty.
>
> Here is the fix
>
>
> Please add a testcase ("__attribute__((ownership_takes(__))) void f();"
> maybe?).
>
> I tried different attributes but none of them triggers the assert though.
> They all spit out warning:
> warning: 'ownership_takes' attribute only applies to functions
> [-Wignored-attributes]
> __attribute__((ownership_takes(__))) f();
> ^
>
>
> You missed the 'void'.
>
>
> Do you have some other idea?
>
>
>
> The '&&' should go at the end of the previous line.
>
> Adrian
> > On Oct 8, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits
> >>>> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Author: aaronballman
> >>>>> Date: Thu Oct 8 14:24:08 2015
> >>>>> New Revision: 249721
> >>>>>
> >>>>> URL:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev%3D249721%26view%3Drev&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=8862f3210cdb7661e90a0d8588334d3e1cf64e92851d05bbcd2b159daf05c7dd
> >>>>> Log:
> >>>>> When mapping no_sanitize_* attributes to no_sanitize attributes,
> handle
> >>>>> GNU-style formatting that involves prefix and suffix underscores.
> >>>>> Cleans up
> >>>>> other usages of similar functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patch by Adrian Zgorzalek!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Modified:
> >>>>> cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
> >>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-address.cpp
> >>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-memory.cpp
> >>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-thread.cpp
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
> >>>>> URL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp?rev%3D249721%26r1%3D249720%26r2%3D249721%26view%3Ddiff&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=7dae8eb5cffae4493f0a6c26033810564fd7b688297fc93106a3b980f76cdd9f
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp (original)
> >>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp Thu Oct 8 14:24:08 2015
> >>>>> @@ -1308,6 +1308,17 @@ void Sema::AddAssumeAlignedAttr(SourceRa
> >>>>> AssumeAlignedAttr(AttrRange, Context, E, OE,
> >>>>> SpellingListIndex));
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/// Normalize the attribute, __foo__ becomes foo.
> >>>>> +/// Returns true if normalization was applied.
> >>>>> +static bool normalizeName(StringRef &AttrName) {
> >>>>> + if (AttrName.startswith("__") && AttrName.endswith("__")) {
> >>>>> + assert(AttrName.size() > 4 && "Name too short");
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This assert will fire on the strings __, ___, and ____, which are
> valid
> >>>> in
> >>>> some of the below cases.
> >>>
> >>> That assert won't fire on anything but ____ because it's &&, not ||.
> >>
> >>
> >> I disagree. __ starts with __ and ends with __. The right thing to do
> here
> >> is remove the assert and put back the AttrName.size() > 4 check that the
> >> callers used to have.
> >
> > Hah, you are correct. I hadn't considered that point. I agree with you.
> :-)
> >
> > ~Aaron
> >
> >>
> >>> I
> >>> don't think these names were intended to be valid in their uses.
> >>> However, you are correct that this will trigger assertions instead of
> >>> diagnostics. Adrian, can you investigate?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + AttrName = AttrName.drop_front(2).drop_back(2);
> >>>>> + return true;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + return false;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static void handleOwnershipAttr(Sema &S, Decl *D, const AttributeList
> >>>>> &AL) {
> >>>>> // This attribute must be applied to a function declaration. The
> >>>>> first
> >>>>> // argument to the attribute must be an identifier, the name of the
> >>>>> resource,
> >>>>> @@ -1349,11 +1360,8 @@ static void handleOwnershipAttr(Sema &S,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IdentifierInfo *Module = AL.getArgAsIdent(0)->Ident;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - // Normalize the argument, __foo__ becomes foo.
> >>>>> StringRef ModuleName = Module->getName();
> >>>>> - if (ModuleName.startswith("__") && ModuleName.endswith("__") &&
> >>>>> - ModuleName.size() > 4) {
> >>>>> - ModuleName = ModuleName.drop_front(2).drop_back(2);
> >>>>> + if (normalizeName(ModuleName)) {
> >>>>> Module = &S.PP.getIdentifierTable().get(ModuleName);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -2648,9 +2656,7 @@ static void handleFormatAttr(Sema &S, De
> >>>>> IdentifierInfo *II = Attr.getArgAsIdent(0)->Ident;
> >>>>> StringRef Format = II->getName();
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - // Normalize the argument, __foo__ becomes foo.
> >>>>> - if (Format.startswith("__") && Format.endswith("__")) {
> >>>>> - Format = Format.substr(2, Format.size() - 4);
> >>>>> + if (normalizeName(Format)) {
> >>>>> // If we've modified the string name, we need a new identifier
> for
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>> II = &S.Context.Idents.get(Format);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> @@ -3131,9 +3137,7 @@ static void handleModeAttr(Sema &S, Decl
> >>>>> IdentifierInfo *Name = Attr.getArgAsIdent(0)->Ident;
> >>>>> StringRef Str = Name->getName();
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - // Normalize the attribute name, __foo__ becomes foo.
> >>>>> - if (Str.startswith("__") && Str.endswith("__"))
> >>>>> - Str = Str.substr(2, Str.size() - 4);
> >>>>> + normalizeName(Str);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> unsigned DestWidth = 0;
> >>>>> bool IntegerMode = true;
> >>>>> @@ -4533,8 +4537,10 @@ static void handleNoSanitizeAttr(Sema &S
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void handleNoSanitizeSpecificAttr(Sema &S, Decl *D,
> >>>>> const AttributeList &Attr) {
> >>>>> + StringRef AttrName = Attr.getName()->getName();
> >>>>> + normalizeName(AttrName);
> >>>>> std::string SanitizerName =
> >>>>> - llvm::StringSwitch<std::string>(Attr.getName()->getName())
> >>>>> + llvm::StringSwitch<std::string>(AttrName)
> >>>>> .Case("no_address_safety_analysis", "address")
> >>>>> .Case("no_sanitize_address", "address")
> >>>>> .Case("no_sanitize_thread", "thread")
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any way we could use the spelling list index in this case
> >>>> rather
> >>>> than repeating the attribute names and __-stripping here?
> >>>
> >>> The spelling list index isn't exposed in a meaningful way (and I think
> >>> that would be an abuse of it; I want to someday remove that
> >>> implementation detail to something far more private).
> >>>
> >>> I was hoping there would be a way to use the semantic spelling, but
> >>> the issue is that this particular attribute doesn't have semantic
> >>> spellings. The NoSanitizeSpecificAttr would have one, but it has no
> >>> AST node to hang those off of. Since we explicitly document that we do
> >>> not want any additional names added to this list (see Attr.td line
> >>> 1500), I think this is a reasonable solution as-is.
> >>>
> >>> ~Aaron
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-address.cpp
> >>>>> URL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-address.cpp?rev%3D249721%26r1%3D249720%26r2%3D249721%26view%3Ddiff&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=46b5171e8784900ffa959a20f8824d63377f6d80d0c92c69d5a271edb5d83930
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-address.cpp (original)
> >>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-address.cpp Thu Oct 8
> >>>>> 14:24:08 2015
> >>>>> @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@
> >>>>> #if !__has_attribute(no_sanitize_address)
> >>>>> #error "Should support no_sanitize_address"
> >>>>> #endif
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_ADDRESS;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_address(1))); // \
> >>>>> - // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_address' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_ADDRESS;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_alt() __attribute__((__no_sanitize_address__));
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_address(1))); // \
> >>>>> + // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_address' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) NO_SANITIZE_ADDRESS;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-memory.cpp
> >>>>> URL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-memory.cpp?rev%3D249721%26r1%3D249720%26r2%3D249721%26view%3Ddiff&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=676ca5d3b6bef5b3c04a9d6861c547a35afb54f85454fc23551da843ce369b1c
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-memory.cpp (original)
> >>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-memory.cpp Thu Oct 8
> >>>>> 14:24:08
> >>>>> 2015
> >>>>> @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@
> >>>>> #if !__has_attribute(no_sanitize_memory)
> >>>>> #error "Should support no_sanitize_memory"
> >>>>> #endif
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_MEMORY;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_memory(1))); // \
> >>>>> - // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_memory' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_MEMORY;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_alt() __attribute__((__no_sanitize_memory__));
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_memory(1))); // \
> >>>>> + // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_memory' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) NO_SANITIZE_MEMORY;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-thread.cpp
> >>>>> URL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-thread.cpp?rev%3D249721%26r1%3D249720%26r2%3D249721%26view%3Ddiff&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=30f400a0be1c699374d1f30504fa1f190158506f984bbeac66fe6998be9fd7b7
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-thread.cpp (original)
> >>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/attr-no-sanitize-thread.cpp Thu Oct 8
> >>>>> 14:24:08
> >>>>> 2015
> >>>>> @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@
> >>>>> #if !__has_attribute(no_sanitize_thread)
> >>>>> #error "Should support no_sanitize_thread"
> >>>>> #endif
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_THREAD;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_thread(1))); // \
> >>>>> - // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_thread' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun() NO_SANITIZE_THREAD;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_alt() __attribute__((__no_sanitize_thread__));
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +void noanal_fun_args() __attribute__((no_sanitize_thread(1))); // \
> >>>>> + // expected-error {{'no_sanitize_thread' attribute takes no
> >>>>> arguments}}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) NO_SANITIZE_THREAD;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int noanal_testfn(int y) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
> >>>>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=kMsJztGqfQof%2FUicfGEXM78GJV6jd7CTOxlypvgU10A%3D%0A&s=76daddf3012e1755f9df59be7e195c26e1d2179d81b412635ff70771ec3f1ed5
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=ZpIyPFH5RmN0EBF%2B6Om2Hg%3D%3D%0A&m=WuZEZVUEJf2wFyWAtrTGXbBNpzW%2BZZw00tc0Mznrgws%3D%0A&s=58e8244698d21f8b1b08bb94af4fa2a7c7767fae61ec85c73e89c56a7de5b422>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
