[cfe-dev] [PATCH] New syntax and functionality for __has_attribute

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Aaron Ballman <
> aaron at aaronballman.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Aaron Ballman
> >> >> > <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > That's good news -- thanks for confirming.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The feature detection macro itself will still need to have a
> >> >> >> > different
> >> >> >> > name
> >> >> >> > (or some other mechanism) so it can be used compatibly with
> >> >> >> > existing
> >> >> >> > clang
> >> >> >> > deployments, because _has_attribute() currently emits a parse
> >> >> >> > error
> >> >> >> > instead
> >> >> >> > of gracefully returning 0 when passed the new argument syntax:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > tmp/attr2.cpp:1:5: error: builtin feature check macro requires a
> >> >> >> > parenthesized identifier
> >> >> >> > #if __has_attribute(__attribute__((weakref)))
> >> >> >> >     ^
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Good catch. Unfortunately, __has_attribute is really the best
> >> >> >> identifier for the macro, so I am loathe to let it go.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Due to the current design of __has_attribute, we can't get away
> with
> >> >> >> "
> >> >> >> magic" by expanding the non-function-like form into a value that
> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> be tested. So we would really have to pick a new name if we are
> >> >> >> worried about this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Suggestions on the name are welcome.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ok, I'll bite:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > __has_attribute_written_as([[foo]])
> >> >> > __has_attribute_syntax([[foo]])
> >> >> > __has_attribute_spelling([[foo]])
> >> >>
> >> >> I kind of like __has_attribute_syntax, truth be told.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Have we given up on using the name __has_attribute too soon? Users of
> >> > the
> >> > new syntax could write:
> >> >
> >> > // Probably already in project's porting header
> >> > #ifndef __has_feature
> >> > #define __has_feature(x) 0
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > #if __has_feature(__has_attribute_syntax)
> >> > #define MY_HAS_ATTRIBUTE(...) __has_attribute(__VA_ARGS__)
> >> > #else
> >> > #define MY_HAS_ATTRIBUTE(...) 0
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > If it's given a different name, they instead would write something
> like:
> >> >
> >> > #ifdef __has_attribute_syntax
> >> > #define MY_HAS_ATTRIBUTE(...) __has_attribute_syntax(__VA_ARGS__)
> >> > #else
> >> > #define MY_HAS_ATTRIBUTE(...) 0
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > So I don't think the change-in-syntax argument holds water.
> >>
> >> So are you proposing that we would have a different name for the
> >> purposes of the __has_feature macro? Eg)
> >> __has_feature(__has_attribute_syntax) is 1 for the proposed
> >> functionality, and 0 otherwise?
> >
> >
> > It's a possibility. It could be that a new name is a better approach, but
> > both directions seem to be feasible.
>
> I'll ponder; I rather like keeping the existing name.


By the same argument, it's possible to add extra arguments to
__has_attribute, if we have a __has_feature check for the new syntax.


> >>
> >> > Also, supporting arguments in the attributes is useful in some cases
> --
> >> > it's
> >> > not true that they don't make sense in a feature-checking facility.
> For
> >> > instance:
> >> >
> >> >   __has_attribute( __attribute__((format)) )
> >> >
> >> > ... doesn't tell me whether __attribute__((format, gnu_scanf, 1, 2)
> will
> >> > work (and I'd expect that the format attribute will gain additional
> >> > archetypes in future).
> >>
> >> That's true, but the example also demonstrates why it's kind of
> >> nonsensical. What do the 1, 2 represent for the purposes of
> >> __has_attribute?
> >
> >
> > They represent themselves. Suppose we added support for a format
> attribute
> > with negative indices, or with three indices, or something -- this syntax
> > would allow the user to determine if that syntax is available.
> >
> >> Can they be elided? If so, can we come up with
> >> declarative rules as to when they can be elided?
> >
> >
> > If you could omit them, how would you tell whether an attribute could be
> > used without arguments?
> >
> > Again, I'm not saying we should go in this direction, but I don't think
> we
> > should dismiss it without consideration -- we probably don't want to
> find we
> > need a third form of __has_attribute later =)
>
> That's one of the reasons Alp's suggestion for forwards compatibility
> is so nice -- if implemented properly, we could add parameter support
> at a later date (presuming we stick with the attribute syntax style
> approach).
>
> I'd like to avoid attempting to preprocess parameters for this patch,
> but had intended to leave the door open for the future. So it wasn't
> entirely without consideration. ;-)


=) OK then!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140113/81dffb52/attachment.html>