NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:3593
+def EnforceTCBLeaf : InheritableAttr {
+ let Spellings = [Clang<"enforce_tcb_leaf">];
+ let Subjects = SubjectList<[Function]>;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Are these two attributes mutually exclusive, or would it make sense for a
> function to use both of these at the same time?
Indeed! They should be mutually exclusive for the same TCB identifier but the
same function can still be a non-leaf member of one TCB and a leaf member of
another TCB.
Added an error and a test.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:11087
+// TCB warnings
+def err_tcb_conflicting_attributes : Error<
+ "attributes '%0(\"%2\")' and '%1(\"%2\")' are mutually exclusive">;
----------------
Do i understand correctly that while "unknown attribute" is a warning ("must be
an attribute for some other compiler, let's ignore"), misuse of a known
attribute is typically an error ("ok, whatever you meant here, i have an
opinion about what this really means and i don't like it")?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/attr-enforce-tcb-errors.cpp:23
+void both_tcb_and_tcb_leaf_on_separate_redeclarations();
+__attribute__((enforce_tcb_leaf("x"))) // FIXME: This should be an error.
+void both_tcb_and_tcb_leaf_on_separate_redeclarations() {}
----------------
Unfortunately the new facility doesn't catch this case because in
`handleEnforceTCBAttr()` the function doesn't yet know that it's a
redeclaration. I think this case is more important to catch than the
straightforward case (because it's very easy to make this mistake), so i'll try
to find a better place to emit the error. Is it ok if this goes into a
follow-up patch?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91898/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91898
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
