We don't support __declspec or __stdcall without -fms-extensions, so it seemed consistent to not parse MS builtins.
However, the real reason I sent this out now is because I want to add _alloca (http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1989). If you lack a declaration for malloc, we'll suggest a typo correction to _alloca, which is definitely not what you wanted. I could abandon this and maybe avoid typo corrections a different way. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def:674 @@ +673,3 @@ +// Microsoft builtins. These are only active with -fms-extensions. +// They are not library builtins despire our use of LIBBUILTIN. +LIBBUILTIN(__assume, "vb", "n", 0, ALL_MS_LANGUAGES) ---------------- Richard Smith wrote: > This isn't particularly great. Can you find a cleaner approach? Maybe: > > #ifndef RESTRICTED_BUILTIN > #define RESTRICTED_BUILTIN(a, b, c, d) BUILTIN(a, b, c) > #endif > > ... and then explicitly handle this in the one place where we care (in > Builtins.cpp)? (Better macro name welcome!) Sure. LANG_BUILTIN(), since its a builtin plus a language restriction? http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2128 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
