| Message ID | 4E84DA18.3080009@google.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
That seems much cleaner! LGTM. Are you submitting the patch? I can submit the test case. -DeLesley On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > On 11-09-29 15:19 , Delesley Hutchins wrote: > >> However, I'm not convinced that it will work in all cases. I wish I >> could come up with a test case, but like I said, I don't understand >> enough about clones to understand what's happening here. If you are >> confident that DECL_CLONED_FUNCTION_P is correct, then we can use >> that; I personally had no such confidence. > > Yes, there is no case in which a TEMPLATE_DECL will match > DECL_CLONED_FUNCTION_P. I agree with you that the logic in > decl_cloned_function_p seems like it may allow that, but clones of functions > are created as FUNCTION_DECLs. > > In looking at the code again, I think we could even simplify it a bit more > using FOR_EACH_CLONE. This does the same work as the if()/for() combination > in a more compact way. > > > Diego. > > Index: cp/parser.c > =================================================================== > --- cp/parser.c (revision 179065) > +++ cp/parser.c (working copy) > @@ -19279,6 +19279,7 @@ cp_parser_late_parsing_attribute_arg_lis > cp_token_cache *tokens = (cp_token_cache *) TREE_VALUE > (artificial_node); > tree ctype; > VEC(tree,gc) *vec; > + tree clone; > > gcc_assert (tokens); > gcc_assert (decl && decl != error_mark_node); > @@ -19322,16 +19323,9 @@ cp_parser_late_parsing_attribute_arg_lis > > /* If decl has clones (when it is a ctor or a dtor), we need to > modify the clones' attributes as well. */ > - if (TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL > - && (DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (decl) || DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (decl))) > - { > - tree clone; > - for (clone = TREE_CHAIN (decl); clone; clone = TREE_CHAIN > (clone)) > - { > - if (DECL_CLONED_FUNCTION (clone) == decl) > - DECL_ATTRIBUTES (clone) = DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl); > - } > - } > + FOR_EACH_CLONE (clone, decl) > + if (DECL_CLONED_FUNCTION (clone) == decl) > + DECL_ATTRIBUTES (clone) = DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl); > > pop_nested_class (); > >
On 11-09-29 17:24 , Delesley Hutchins wrote: > That seems much cleaner! LGTM. Are you submitting the patch? I can > submit the test case. I tested it on an unclean tree, sorry. I'd rather leave the testing and final submit to you. Thanks. Diego.
No problem. Will do. -DeLesley On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > On 11-09-29 17:24 , Delesley Hutchins wrote: >> >> That seems much cleaner! LGTM. Are you submitting the patch? I can >> submit the test case. > > I tested it on an unclean tree, sorry. I'd rather leave the testing and > final submit to you. > > > Thanks. Diego. >
Index: cp/parser.c =================================================================== --- cp/parser.c (revision 179065) +++ cp/parser.c (working copy) @@ -19279,6 +19279,7 @@ cp_parser_late_parsing_attribute_arg_lis cp_token_cache *tokens = (cp_token_cache *) TREE_VALUE (artificial_node); tree ctype; VEC(tree,gc) *vec; + tree clone; gcc_assert (tokens);