[PATCH] Fix PR49718 : allow no_instrument_function attribute in class member definition/declaration

[Laurent Alfonsi]

Perfect. Thanks very much for the commit.
Regards,
Laurent

On 01/15/14 20:25, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/09/14 07:17, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
>> On 01/09/14 06:02, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 01/08/14 02:05, Laurent Alfonsi wrote:
>>>>        All,
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at PR49718. I have enclosed a simple fix for this bug
>>>> report.
>>>>
>>>> 2014-01-07  Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfonsi@st.com>
>>>>
>>>>        * c-family/c-common.c
>>>> (handle_no_instrument_function_attribute): Allow
>>>>          no_instrument_function attribute in class member
>>>> definition/declaration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the implementation of the function attributes, I see no
>>>> reason anymore to keep this error message.
>>>> Let me know if I missed something.
>>>> I have also added a testcase in the enclosed patch.
>>>>
>>>> 2014-01-07  Laurent Alfonsi <laurent.alfonsi@st.com>
>>>>
>>>>        PR c++/49718
>>>>        * g++.dg/pr49718.C: New
>>> Isn't the idea here that if we've already generated the function body
>>> (presumably with instrumentation) that a no-instrument attribute
>>> appearing on a later declaration won't do anything useful?
>>>
>>> jeff
>>>
>>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> You are right. That's probably the reason.
>>   From what i can see, the code instrumentation is performed in the
>> gimplification pass (gimplify_function_tree), and the function attribute
>> is handled and attached earlier in the parsing phase.
>>
>> I ve checked with an example like :
>> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
>> int foo () {
>>     return 2;
>> }
>>
>> int bar () {
>>     return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int foo () __attribute__((no_instrument_function));
>> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<---
>> The attribute is well honored on foo function.
>> I might need to add this test case too.
> Thanks.  I checked with Jakub and he confirmed that all the flags to
> disable unit-at-a-time mode are gone and there's no way to generate
> gimple for a function prior to parsing the entire TU.
>
> That means this patch should be OK.   I don't see you in the MAINTAINERS
> file or with an account on gcc.gnu.org, so I'll check it in for you shortly.
>
> Thanks for your patience,
>
> Jeff
>
> .
>