aaron.ballman added a comment.
This is missing Sema tests ensuring that the attribute only appertains to the
correct subject, does not accept arguments, etc.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:356
+ let Content = [{
+Calls to functions marked `nomerge` will not be merged during optimization.
+This attribute can be used to prevent the optimizer from obscuring the source
----------------
Looks like the docs need updating still. The functions aren't marked `nomerge`,
statements are. This should explain the behavior of how we are lowering the
`nomerge` attribute on call sites.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp:4526
+ // Add call-site nomerge attribute if exists
+ if (NoMerge)
----------------
Missing a full stop at the end of the comment.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp:611
void CodeGenFunction::EmitAttributedStmt(const AttributedStmt &S) {
+ for (const auto *Attr: S.getAttrs())
+ if (Attr->getKind() == attr::NoMerge) {
----------------
Please don't name the declaration `Attr` as that's a type name.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaStmtAttr.cpp:175
+ SourceRange Range) {
+ return ::new (S.Context) NoMergeAttr(S.Context, A);
+}
----------------
Should there be semantic checking here? For instance, I would expect that
writing a `nomerge` attribute on a statement which contains no call expressions
should be diagnosed because something unexpected has happened.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79121/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79121
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
