On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
> the original behavior for the positional argument validation
> (i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
> discussed.
I thought Jason wanted to also warn for scoped enums in C++.
> + else if (code == INTEGER_TYPE)
> + /* For integers, accept enums, wide characters and other types
> + that match INTEGRAL_TYPE_P except for bool. */
> + type_match = (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (argtype)
> + && TREE_CODE (argtype) != BOOLEAN_TYPE);
So it would better be:
type_match = (TREE_CODE (argtype) == INTEGER_TYPE
|| (TREE_CODE (argtype) == ENUMERAL_TYPE
&& !ENUM_IS_SCOPED (argtype)));
> --- gcc/doc/extend.texi (revision 266966)
> +++ gcc/doc/extend.texi (working copy)
> @@ -2471,7 +2471,9 @@ The @code{aligned} attribute can also be used for
> @item alloc_align (@var{position})
> @cindex @code{alloc_align} function attribute
> The @code{alloc_align} attribute may be applied to a function that
> -returns a pointer and takes at least one argument of an integer type.
> +returns a pointer and takes at least one argument of an integer or
> +enumerated type, but not @code{bool}. Arguments of other types are
> +diagnosed.
The keyword is _Bool in C, so wouldn't it be better to say but not Boolean
type or but not @code{bool} or @code{_Bool}?
And it should mention the scoped enumeration types for C++ too
(+ testsuite coverage for them).
Jakub
