zahiraam marked an inline comment as done.
zahiraam added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:6784
+ if (II->getInterestingIdentifierID() != 0)
+ NewTD->addAttr(AvailableOnlyInDefaultEvalMethodAttr::Create(Context));
}
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> zahiraam wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > Please switch over the interesting identifiers here; we don't want to
> > > assume this feature is only used for these two names.
> > >
> > > In fact, should we go ahead and immediately apply it to the four
> > > identifiers above this? That would be nice, because then we could
> > > actually do this in two patches: one patch that does the refactor to
> > > track interesting identifiers but doesn't cause any functionality changes
> > > and a second, very small patch that just introduces the new special
> > > treatment for `float_t` and `double_t`.
> > > Please switch over the interesting identifiers here; we don't want to
> > > assume this feature is only used for these two names.
> > >
> > > In fact, should we go ahead and immediately apply it to the four
> > > identifiers above this? That would be nice, because then we could
> > > actually do this in two patches: one patch that does the refactor to
> > > track interesting identifiers but doesn't cause any functionality changes
> > > and a second, very small patch that just introduces the new special
> > > treatment for `float_t` and `double_t`.
> >
> > Are you saying that "FILE", "jmp_buf"," sigjmp_buf" and "ucontext_t" are
> > also interesting identifiers? If yes, they should be added to the list of
> > interesting identifiers in TokenKinds.def?
> Right. The basic idea of interesting identifiers is to replace these sorts
> of identifier comparisons in performance-critical code. So your first patch
> would *only* add those four identifiers as interesting identifiers, handling
> them here by registering the `typedef` with the ASTContext like the code is
> already doing. Then you'd make a follow-up patch that adds `float_t` and
> `double_t` and handles them here by implicitly adding your new attribute.
> Right. The basic idea of interesting identifiers is to replace these sorts
> of identifier comparisons in performance-critical code. So your first patch
> would *only* add those four identifiers as interesting identifiers, handling
> them here by registering the `typedef` with the ASTContext like the code is
> already doing. Then you'd make a follow-up patch that adds `float_t` and
> `double_t` and handles them here by implicitly adding your new attribute.
I think that does it?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146148/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146148
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
