apazos added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Sema/riscv-interrupt-attr.c:23
+ // expected-note
{{repeated RISC-V 'interrupt' attribute is here}}
+__attribute__((interrupt("user"))) void foo8() {}
+__attribute__((interrupt("supervisor"))) void foo9() {}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> apazos wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Do you intend for functions without a prototype to be accepted? foo8()
> > > > can be passed an arbitrary number of arguments, which is a bit
> > > > different than what I thought you wanted the semantic check to be.
> > > This question remains outstanding.
> > The checks are validating both function definitions and function prototypes
> > like these:
> > _attribute__((interrupt)) void foo1() {}
> > __attribute__((interrupt)) void foo(void);
> > Not sure what the confusion is.
> Ah, now I see where the confusion is.
>
> In C, an empty parameter list declares a function without a prototype;
> functions without prototypes can accept any number of arguments. To declare a
> function that accepts no arguments, you must have a prototype for the
> function and the parameter list is void. In C++, all functions are prototyped
> and an empty parameter list is equivalent to a parameter list of void. The
> word "prototype" doesn't mean "forward declaration". e.g.,
> ```
> // C code
> void foo1(); // Declaration; no prototype; accepts any number of arguments.
> void foo2() {} // Definition; no prototype; accepts any number of arguments.
> void foo3(void); // Declaration; prototype; accepts no arguments.
> void foo4(void) {} // Definition; prototype; accepts no arguments.
>
> foo2(1, 2, 3); // ok
> foo4(1, 2, 3); // error
> ```
> Because a function without a prototype can accept any number of arguments, I
> think you want to diagnose such a function signature.
Thanks for clarifying.
I checked GCC behavior and it is less strict. For the example below, it
silently accepts the interrupt attribute.
extern int foo2();
__attribute__((interrupt)) void foo();
void foo() {
foo2();
}
while in LLVM we would be rejecting with the message:
RISC-V 'interrupt' attribute only applies to functions that have no parameters.
I find the reuse of the message confusing.
If we want stricter rule then we probably also need a specific message for the
missing prototype.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48412
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
