[PATCH] D55483: Introduce the callback attribute and emit !callback metadata

[Johannes Doerfert via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jdoerfert marked 3 inline comments as done.
jdoerfert added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:1204
+              VariadicUnsignedArgument<"PayloadIndices">];
+  let Subjects = SubjectList<[Function]>;
+  let Documentation = [Undocumented];
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Should this also apply to Objective-C methods?
> > > > 
> > > > Why should the user specify this attribute on the function as opposed to on the parameter? e.g.,
> > > > ```
> > > > // Why this:
> > > > __attribute__((callback (1, 2, 3)))
> > > > void* broker0(void* (*callee)(void *), void *payload, int otherPayload) {
> > > >   return callee(payload);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > // Instead of this:
> > > > void* broker0(void* (*callee)(void *) __attribute__((callback (2, 3))), void *payload, int otherPayload) {
> > > >   return callee(payload);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > // Or this:
> > > > void* broker0(void* (*callee)(void *) __attribute__((callback (payload, otherPayload))), void *payload, int otherPayload) {
> > > >   return callee(payload);
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > > I ask because these "use an index" attributes are really hard for users to use in practice. They have to account for 0-vs-1 based indexing, implicit this parameters, etc and if we can avoid that, it may be worth the effort.
> > > > Should this also apply to Objective-C methods?
> > > 
> > > I don't need it to and unless somebody does, I'd say no.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I ask because these "use an index" attributes are really hard for users to use in practice. They have to account for 0-vs-1 based indexing, implicit this parameters, etc and if we can avoid that, it may be worth the effort.
> > > 
> > > I was thinking that the function notation makes it clear that there is *only one callback per function* allowed right now. I don't expect many manual users of this feature until we improve the middle-end support, so it is unclear to me if this requirement needs to be removed as well.
> > > 
> > > Other than that, some thoughts: 
> > > - I do not feel strongly about this.
> > > - The middle requirement seems not much better n the first, we would still need to deal with index numbers (callbacks without arguments are not really interesting for now). 
> > > - The last encoding requires us to define a symbol for "unknown argument" (maybe _ or ?).
> > > I was thinking that the function notation makes it clear that there is *only one callback per function* allowed right now.
> > 
> > I don't see how that follows. Users may still try writing:
> > ```
> > __attribute__((callback (1, 3, 4)))
> > __attribute__((callback (2, 3, 4)))
> > void broker0(void (*cb1)(void *, int), void (*cb2)(void *, int), void *payload, int otherPayload) {
> >   cb1(payload, otherPayload);
> >   cb2(payload, otherPayload);
> > }
> > ```
> > and reasonably expect that to work (we should have this as a test case, and probably warn on it).
> > 
> > I'm not strongly opposed to the current way this is exposed to users, just wondering if we can find a better way to surface the feature.
> > 
> > > The last encoding requires us to define a symbol for "unknown argument" (maybe _ or ?).
> > 
> > Ah, I wasn't aware that this was part of the feature, but the documentation you wrote helped to clarify for me. Personal preference is for `?`, but any symbol will do (so long as we aren't hoping users can count commas, e.g., `callback(,,,,frobble,,,foo)`).
> > and reasonably expect that to work (we should have this as a test case, and probably warn on it).
> 
> We have a test case and we'll spit out an error. (Sema/attr-callback-broken.c line 21 & 22)
> 
> 
> > I'm not strongly opposed to the current way this is exposed to users, just wondering if we can find a better way to surface the feature.
> 
> I can change it to the inlined style if nobody disagrees:
> 
> ```
>    void broker(int foo, void (*callback)(int, int, int, int) __attribute__((callback(foo, ?, bar, ?))), int bar);
> 
> ```
> 
> As I mentioned, I don't have a strong opinion on this but I just don't want to change it back and forth :)
> 
You can now use parameter names or indices in the callback attribute. The special identifiers "__" (double underscore) and "__this" can be used to specify an unknown (-1 in the index notation) and the implicit "this" (0 in the index notation) argument.


================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/callback_qsort_r.c:1
+// RUN: %clang %s -fsyntax-only 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+// RUN: %clang -D_GNU_SOURCE %s -S -c -emit-llvm -o - -O1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=IR
----------------
arichardson wrote:
> This should use a linux triple otherwise the qsort_r declaration is wrong. Ideally it should also handle macos+FreeBSD with the inverted argument order.
I postponed qsort_r until we have another similar function or somebody want to implement the necessary functionality. 


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D55483/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D55483