================
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/CLCompatOptions.td:121
@@ -120,1 +120,3 @@
+def _SLASH_vd : CLJoined<"vd">, HelpText<"Control vtordisp placement">,
+ Alias<vtordisp_mode_EQ>;
def _SLASH_Z7 : CLFlag<"Z7">, Alias<gline_tables_only>;
----------------
Reid Kleckner wrote:
> David Majnemer wrote:
> > Can we have a test in ##test/Driver/cl-options.c## for checking that `-vd`
> > works?
> >
> > Also, my cl doesn't allow stuff like `cl -vd1 -vd2 q.cpp`. It errors with:
> > > '/vd1' and '/vd2' command-line options are incompatible
> >
> >
> We already have a test to make sure we accept /vdN without error. I don't
> think it's worth a separate process invocation in every test suite run just
> to make sure that tablegen aliases work.
We still need a test for when `-vd1` is specified with `-vd2`.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParsePragma.cpp:192
@@ -191,1 +191,3 @@
+void Parser::HandlePragmaMSVtorDisp() {
+ assert(Tok.is(tok::annot_pragma_ms_vtordisp));
----------------
Reid Kleckner wrote:
> David Majnemer wrote:
> > This seems a bit unusual compared to the other `#pragma` implementations.
> > Looking at the very similar `Parser::HandlePragmaPack`, it consumes a
> > single token which contains a pointer to useful data. A similar approach
> > should make the implementation of `Parser::HandlePragmaMSVtorDisp` simpler.
> HandlePragmaPack is somewhat simple, but the other side has to use the PP
> allocator and placement new to push the magic token, which is gross. Why not
> just push the integer or identifier token in question and let the parser
> consume tokens like it normally would? Also, pragma pack doesn't do any
> error handling if the integer value is bogus, which is half of the complexity
> here.
>
> Long term, I think the pragma handlers in parse should receive a reference to
> Sema or Parser so they don't need to inject tokens. Then we can handle
> things like:
>
> struct A {
> virtual void f();
> #pragma vtordisp(0)
> struct B : virtual A { virtual void f(); };
> };
>
> Today we error our because the annotations don't appear at the right places
> in our grammar.
I'm not worried about using the allocator for things like this, `#pragma
vtordisp` is very rare.
I don't see a technical argument for duplicating the code to examine "on" and
"off".
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2746
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
