r201162 - 'nonnull(1)' on a block parameter should apply to the block's argument.

[Jordan Rose]

+Ted.

I'm guessing we should stick with GCC's interpretation when the parameter is a function or block pointer, but maybe have a warning, and a fix-it for both possible interpretations.

Jordan


On Feb 17, 2014, at 15:52, Richard Smith <metafoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> This still seems to be GCC-incompatible. Per the GCC documentation, "__attribute__((nonnull))" on a pointer-to-function parameter means that all of *that* function's parameters can't be null. For instance:
> 
> void f(int (*p)(int *a, int *b) __attribute__((nonnull))) {
>   if (p)
>     p(0, 0); // #1
> }
> void g() { f(0); } // #2
> 
> GCC warns on line #1, Clang warns on line #2.
> 
> On Tue Feb 11 2014 at 9:40:01 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:36 , Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> >
> > +    if (D->getFunctionType()) {
> > +      handleNonNullAttr(S, D, Attr);
> > +    } else {
> > +      S.Diag(Attr.getLoc(), diag::warn_attribute_nonnull_parm_no_args)
> > +        << D->getSourceRange();
> > +    }
> >
> >
> > Minor nit about the style -- shouldn't be using the curly braces here.
> >
> >
> > Uh...hm. I tried it without the curly braces, but it looked very strange
> > with the << dangling there. Should I add a dummy comment to justify it?
> 
> I'm not too keen on dummy comments. If you think it's ugly without the
> braces, I'm fine with leaving them. :-)
> 
> ~Aaron
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140217/7dcf7734/attachment.html>