On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > You have ''__foo'' in some of your diagnostics. These should only use a >> > single level of quotes. >> >> The quotes were used for consistency with other diagnostics involving >> attributes. I'll look into it again though. >> >> > Should these really be handled as declaration attributes? They look like >> > they would more naturally be type attributes. Can you do this: >> > >> > void * __sptr * __uptr p; >> >> I think eventually they (along with __ptr32 and __ptr64) will have to >> move over to ExtQuals (or somewhere near there) because they're really >> type qualifers more than declaration attributes. But I was modeling >> after existing constructs. And yes, you can do that, though it's >> basically pointless because there's not a __ptrXX involved. But you >> are correct, this really highlights that __ptrXX and __sptr/__uptr >> need to move to types instead of declarations. >> >> Do you think ExtQuals would be an appropriate place, or do you have a >> better suggestion? > > > ExtQuals (or rather, Qualifiers) does not have any spare bits. Do these > qualifiers affect the canonical type? That is, can you overload on this? > Does MSVC accept this: > > void f(int * __uptr __ptr32 * p) {} > void f(int * __sptr __ptr32 * p) {}
You cannot -- same with __ptr32 vs __ptr64 > If MSVC thinks those parameters have the same type, we can just store this > as an AttributedType sugar node. If they're different, we'll need to find > somewhere to jam in the extra bits (likewise for __ptr32 and __ptr64, > presumably). Okay, I will look into this approach. Thanks! ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
