> On 2016-Feb-23, at 11:18, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Manman Ren <m...@apple.com> wrote:
>> This patch looks good to me. But I am not sure if Aaron has any comment.
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsm...@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2016-Feb-22, at 17:24, Manman Ren <m...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsm...@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This patch adds support for templates in availability attributes.
>> - If the context for an availability diagnostic is a
>> `FunctionTemplateDecl`, look through it to the `FunctionDecl`.
>>
>>
>> AvailabilityResult Decl::getAvailability(std::string *Message) const {
>> + if (auto *FTD = dyn_cast<FunctionTemplateDecl>(this))
>> + return FTD->getTemplatedDecl()->getAvailability(Message);
>> +
>> AvailabilityResult Result = AR_Available;
>>
>>
>> This looks generally correct to me.
>> The UnavailableAttr is attached to the FunctionDecl, not the
>> FunctionTemplateDecl, so looking through sounds right.
>>
>> - Add `__has_feature(attribute_availability_in_templates)`.
>>
>>
>> @Aaron, any comment on this?
>> This patch adds extra support for Availability attribute (similar to
>> attribute_availability_with_strict in r261548).
>> Not sure if has_attribute can be used for this purpose.
>
> Given that we're already using __has_feature for the rest of the
> availability attribute stuff, I think it's better to keep it all
> grouped together instead of checking for some features with
> __has_feature and others with __has_attribute.
Besides that argument, this isn't adding any attributes, just checking
how they behave.
> If I understand
> properly, this is taking code that would have previously been
> ill-formed and making it well-formed, and that's why the feature
> testing macro is required?
Exactly. Previously this was ill-formed:
```
class Unavail __attribute__((unavailable));
template <class T>
void foo(Unavail&) __attribute__((unavailable));
```
Same for `__attribute((availability(macosx,unavailable)))`, and other
triggers of "unavailable".
>
> Thanks!
>
> ~Aaron
>
>>
>> Manman
>>
>>
>> Is there anything else I should be testing to be sure availability
>> works correctly in templates?
>>
>>
>> Maybe
>> test<UnavailableClass>()
>> calling unavailable function from an unavailable template function
>> calling an unavailable template function
>>
>> I think these all work with the current compiler. But I am not sure if we
>> have existing test coverage.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the ideas; let me know if you have any others.
>>
>> Can you have a look at the new patch?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Manman
>>
>> I'm working on a patch to add
>> availability markup to the libc++ headers, and this is the only
>> problem I've hit so far. Anyone have thoughts on other things I
>> should test?
>>
>>
>> <0001-SemaCXX-Support-templates-in-availability-attributes.patch>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
