Hi!
This is the testcase I wrote originally and which on top of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659154.html
patch didn't behave the way I wanted (no warning and no optimizations of
[[unsequenced]] function templates which don't have pointer/reference
arguments.
Posting this separately, because it depends on the above mentioned
patch as well as the PR116175
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659157.html
patch.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2024-08-01 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
* g++.dg/ext/attr-unsequenced-1.C: New test.
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attr-unsequenced-1.C.jj 2024-08-01
16:57:52.309618653 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/attr-unsequenced-1.C 2024-08-01
16:53:36.711859089 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-optimized" } */
+// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " bar<int> \\\(1, 2, 3\\\);" 1
"optimized" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times " bar<int> \\\(4, 5, 6\\\);" 1
"optimized" } }
+
+template <typename T, typename U>
+[[gnu::noipa]] U
+foo (T x, T y, T z) [[gnu::unsequenced]]
+{
+ *x = 1;
+ *y = 2;
+ *z = 3;
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+[[gnu::noipa]] T
+bar (T x, T y, T z) [[gnu::unsequenced]]
+{
+ return x + y + z;
+}
+
+int
+baz () [[gnu::unsequenced]]
+{
+ int x, y, z;
+ foo <int *, void> (&x, &y, &z);
+ return x;
+}
+
+int
+qux () [[gnu::unsequenced]]
+{
+ int a = bar (1, 2, 3);
+ int b = bar (1, 2, 3);
+ int c = bar (1, 2, 3);
+ int d = bar (4, 5, 6);
+ int e = bar (4, 5, 6);
+ int f = bar (4, 5, 6);
+ return a + b + c + d + e + f;
+}
+
+template <typename T, typename U>
+[[gnu::noipa]] U
+corge (T x, T y, T z) [[gnu::unsequenced]] // { dg-warning "'unsequenced'
attribute on function type without pointer arguments returning 'void'" }
+{
+ x += y + z;
+}
+
+void
+freddy ()
+{
+ corge <int, void> (1, 2, 3);
+}
Jakub
