aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp:2050-2066
+static bool IsArgumentMayBeUndef(const Decl *TargetDecl, unsigned ArgNo) {
+ if (!TargetDecl)
+ return false;
+
+ bool ArgHasMayBeUndefAttr = false;
+ if (TargetDecl) {
+ if (const FunctionDecl *FD = dyn_cast<FunctionDecl>(TargetDecl)) {
----------------
skc7 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > One question I have is whether you ever need to mark the variadic arguments
> > as being maybe undef. e.g., `void func(int i, ...);` do you need to signal
> > that arguments passed to `...` are maybe undef?
> >
> Current change assumes variadic arguments will not have "maybe_undef"
> attribute. If its a function attribute, variadic arguments can inherit them
> (Have seen such cases in clang codebase). But "maybe_undef" is function
> argument attribute and I'm not sure on how to add it to variadic arguments.
> Current change assumes variadic arguments will not have "maybe_undef"
> attribute. If its a function attribute, variadic arguments can inherit them
> (Have seen such cases in clang codebase). But "maybe_undef" is function
> argument attribute and I'm not sure on how to add it to variadic arguments.
That's why I was asking if there will be a need either now or in the future --
is making this a parameter attribute the right design, or should this be a
function attribute with positional arguments? (Not that I particularly love
that design, but this isn't a user-facing attribute so if it's hard to use, I'm
not that worried. I just want to make sure we don't need to add additional
attributes in the future in this same space.)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130224/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130224
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
