================
@@ -692,6 +692,13 @@ def warn_maybe_falloff_nonvoid_function : Warning<
def warn_falloff_nonvoid_function : Warning<
"non-void function does not return a value">,
InGroup<ReturnType>;
+def warn_pure_attr_on_cxx_constructor : Warning<
+ "constructor cannot be 'pure' (undefined behavior)">,
+ InGroup<IncorrectAttributeUsage>;
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
Also, I don't think it's always UB to mark a constructor as being pure, it's
just not a sensible operation because a constructor does not produce a value.
(For example, this constructor doesn't violate any principles of function
purity except that it's not called for its value: `struct S { [[gnu::pure]] S()
{} };`)
And I think the same logic applies to marking a destructor as pure; it doesn't
make sense as an operation.
How about: `'%select{pure|const}0' attribute applied to a function which
%select{returns 'void'|has no return value}1; attribute ignored`? Then it
handles both situations, both attributes, and we don't need to invent a new
warning group (it can go under `IgnoredAttributes`).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78200
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
