Committed in r199378 with the changes to the ASM label attributes. I'll look into giving them a keyword spelling soon.
~Aaron On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed Jan 15 2014 at 6:17:50 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> This patch implements the ability to distinguish between attributes >>> explicitly written at the request of the user, and attributes >>> implicitly generated to assist in bookkeeping by the compiler. It >>> additionally removes the optional nature of the spelling list index >>> when creating attributes. These two things go hand in hand because the >>> spelling of the attribute is semantically important in some cases. >>> >>> All attributes now receive a table-generated factory function named >>> CreateImplicit. This function creates a new instance of the attribute, >>> and flags it as being implicitly created. This attribute is then >>> inserted into the AST as normal, but consumers of the AST are able to >>> check whether the attribute was implicitly generated, if it suits >>> them. Currently, no AST consumer cares (outside of the AST dumper, for >>> testing purposes), but the expectation is that this will change. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the attribute has distinct spellings (where distinct is defined as >>> "differing in more than just spelling varieties and leading/trailing >>> underscores), it also receives a Spelling enumeration. This allows >>> spelling-specific implicit attributes to be created without relying on >>> fragile mechanisms. >> >> >> This looks great, thanks! > > Thanks! > >> >> It looks like this patch marks the AsmLabelAttr as always being implicit >> (but maybe I'm misreading). I don't think that's the best choice; it >> corresponds to something the user explicitly wrote in the source code, and >> is our only AST representation of that thing. (It should probably also be >> given a Keyword spelling.) > > Yes, that is what's currently happening. I'll change it up -- if you > notice any others like that, please let me know and I'll modify them > as well. I also suspect there are cases where we add attributes > explicitly which should be implicit that I've missed. > > I'll likely commit in the morning, and we can tackle anything that's > amiss as it comes up. > > Thanks, again! > > ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
