[PATCH] Pragma optimize on/off

[Dario Domizioli]

Hi Sean.


On 12 May 2014 19:36, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> +#pragma clang optimize on top of spaghetti  // expected-warning {{extra
> tokens at end of '#pragma clang optimize' - ignored}}
> The diagnostic here is ambiguous. Was the pragma itself ignored or were
> the extra tokens ignored?
>
>
Hm... The whole pragma is ignored in that case. Some other pragmas behave
the same - if they are not correctly formatted and they have additional
argument they are ignored as a whole. Now that I think of it, I agree that
this behaviour is confusing.
I have maintained consistency with other pragmas (ahem... ok, maybe I have
copied the check from another pragma handler :-) ), but I could easily
change this specific case to an error. In fact, now I think it would make
more sense.

As for the actual text being printed out, the problem is that I have
leveraged an existing warning message. I could change the message, but it
would suddenly become different in all the pragmas that make use of the
message. If we do that, it would probably be better to make it a separate,
documented change.

Cheers,
    Dario Domizioli
    SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group



> PS: I actually laughed out loud when I read "on top of spaghetti" :)
>

I cannot claim the paternity of the phrase since I copied it from another
pragma test. :-) But I found it funny too.








>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Dario Domizioli <
> dario.domizioli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello again!
>>
>> I have now extended the patch with support for serialization of the state
>> of the pragma (for PCHs). I have followed a similar pattern to the one used
>> for the floating point pragmas and the diagnostic pragmas.
>> I have added a PCH test that verifies that if a "#pragma clang optimize
>> off" is still active at the end of a PCH then a source file compiled
>> including the PCH will behave as if the pragma was specified in the source
>> (as it happens with normal headers). The test is modeled after the pragma
>> diagnostics test.
>>
>> I hope the new attached patch covers the issue that was raised by
>> Richard... but I welcome any feedback. I might have missed something.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>     Dario Domizioli
>>     SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 May 2014 18:41, Dario Domizioli <dario.domizioli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Aaron!
>>>
>>> Patch LGTM, modulo Richard's comments about serialization (I worried
>>>> about the same thing, and my preference is for the patch to be
>>>> all-inclusive when feasible, but Richard is welcome to weigh in). I
>>>> have no strong opinions on whether it should be one diagnostic or two.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will wait for Richard's comments then; meanwhile I'll keep working on
>>> the serialization issue.
>>>
>>> As for the diagnostics, I think that having two might make it easier to
>>> extend the "unexpected" case if the pragma gains new functionality in the
>>> future, while the "missing" case is unlikely to change... although the
>>> %select is quite powerful so I haven't got a strong preference either.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Dario Domizioli
>>>     SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140512/f67b70f4/attachment.html>