| Message ID | 20221111184759.2531849-1-ppalka@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | c++: init_priority and SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY [PR107638] | expand |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:48 AM Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > The commit r13-3706-gd0a492faa6478c for correcting the result of > __has_attribute(init_priority) causes a bootstrap failure on hppa64-hpux > because it assumes SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY expands to a simple constant, > but on this target SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY is defined as > > #define SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY (TARGET_GNU_LD ? 1 : 0) > > (where TARGET_GNU_LD expands to something in terms of global_options) > which means we can't use this macro to statically exclude the entry > for init_priority when defining the cxx_attribute_table. > > So instead of trying to exclude init_priority from the attribute table > for sake of __has_attribute, this patch just makes __has_attribute > handle init_priority specially. > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for > trunk? Also sanity checked by artificially defining SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY > to 0. > > PR c++/107638 > > gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: > > * c-lex.cc (c_common_has_attribute): Return 1 for init_priority > iff SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY. > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > * tree.cc (cxx_attribute_table): Don't conditionally exclude > the init_priority entry. > (handle_init_priority_attribute): Remove ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED. > Return error_mark_node if !SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY. > --- > gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc | 9 +++++++++ > gcc/cp/tree.cc | 11 +++++++---- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > index 89c65aca28a..2fe562c7ccf 100644 > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > @@ -380,6 +380,15 @@ c_common_has_attribute (cpp_reader *pfile, bool std_syntax) > result = 201907; > else if (is_attribute_p ("assume", attr_name)) > result = 202207; > + else if (is_attribute_p ("init_priority", attr_name)) > + { > + /* The (non-standard) init_priority attribute is always > + included in the attribute table, but we don't want to > + advertise the attribute unless the target actually > + supports init priorities. */ > + result = SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY ? 1 : 0; > + attr_name = NULL_TREE; > + } > } > else > { > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > index c30bbeb0839..2324c2269fc 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > @@ -5010,10 +5010,8 @@ const struct attribute_spec cxx_attribute_table[] = > { > /* { name, min_len, max_len, decl_req, type_req, fn_type_req, > affects_type_identity, handler, exclude } */ > -#if SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY > { "init_priority", 1, 1, true, false, false, false, > handle_init_priority_attribute, NULL }, > -#endif Hmm, seems like this could be better handled if attribute_spec has another field which takes a function which returns if it is supported or not. And maybe remove some of the special cases inside c_common_has_attribute. I suspect there are some target ones which need special casing in more fancy way. An example of this is arm_handle_cmse_nonsecure_entry in config/arm/arm.cc . Where this attribute is not supported unless you use -mcmse option. Seems would be use if you want to use __has_attribute on cmse_nonsecure_entry to get the right value there too. Note I am not blocking this patch for this but just thinking out loud of how to improve this so special casing is not needed. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > { "abi_tag", 1, -1, false, false, false, true, > handle_abi_tag_attribute, NULL }, > { NULL, 0, 0, false, false, false, false, NULL, NULL } > @@ -5041,13 +5039,19 @@ const struct attribute_spec std_attribute_table[] = > > /* Handle an "init_priority" attribute; arguments as in > struct attribute_spec.handler. */ > -ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED static tree > +static tree > handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, > tree name, > tree args, > int /*flags*/, > bool* no_add_attrs) > { > + if (!SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY) > + /* Treat init_priority as an unrecognized attribute (mirroring the > + result of __has_attribute) if the target doesn't support init > + priorities. */ > + return error_mark_node; > + > tree initp_expr = TREE_VALUE (args); > tree decl = *node; > tree type = TREE_TYPE (decl); > @@ -5105,7 +5109,6 @@ handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, > pri); > } > > - gcc_assert (SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY); > SET_DECL_INIT_PRIORITY (decl, pri); > DECL_HAS_INIT_PRIORITY_P (decl) = 1; > return NULL_TREE; > -- > 2.38.1.420.g319605f8f0 >
On 11/11/22 08:47, Patrick Palka wrote: > The commit r13-3706-gd0a492faa6478c for correcting the result of > __has_attribute(init_priority) causes a bootstrap failure on hppa64-hpux > because it assumes SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY expands to a simple constant, > but on this target SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY is defined as > > #define SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY (TARGET_GNU_LD ? 1 : 0) > > (where TARGET_GNU_LD expands to something in terms of global_options) > which means we can't use this macro to statically exclude the entry > for init_priority when defining the cxx_attribute_table. > > So instead of trying to exclude init_priority from the attribute table > for sake of __has_attribute, this patch just makes __has_attribute > handle init_priority specially. > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for > trunk? Also sanity checked by artificially defining SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY > to 0. OK. > PR c++/107638 > > gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: > > * c-lex.cc (c_common_has_attribute): Return 1 for init_priority > iff SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY. > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > * tree.cc (cxx_attribute_table): Don't conditionally exclude > the init_priority entry. > (handle_init_priority_attribute): Remove ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED. > Return error_mark_node if !SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY. > --- > gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc | 9 +++++++++ > gcc/cp/tree.cc | 11 +++++++---- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > index 89c65aca28a..2fe562c7ccf 100644 > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc > @@ -380,6 +380,15 @@ c_common_has_attribute (cpp_reader *pfile, bool std_syntax) > result = 201907; > else if (is_attribute_p ("assume", attr_name)) > result = 202207; > + else if (is_attribute_p ("init_priority", attr_name)) > + { > + /* The (non-standard) init_priority attribute is always > + included in the attribute table, but we don't want to > + advertise the attribute unless the target actually > + supports init priorities. */ > + result = SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY ? 1 : 0; > + attr_name = NULL_TREE; > + } > } > else > { > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > index c30bbeb0839..2324c2269fc 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > @@ -5010,10 +5010,8 @@ const struct attribute_spec cxx_attribute_table[] = > { > /* { name, min_len, max_len, decl_req, type_req, fn_type_req, > affects_type_identity, handler, exclude } */ > -#if SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY > { "init_priority", 1, 1, true, false, false, false, > handle_init_priority_attribute, NULL }, > -#endif > { "abi_tag", 1, -1, false, false, false, true, > handle_abi_tag_attribute, NULL }, > { NULL, 0, 0, false, false, false, false, NULL, NULL } > @@ -5041,13 +5039,19 @@ const struct attribute_spec std_attribute_table[] = > > /* Handle an "init_priority" attribute; arguments as in > struct attribute_spec.handler. */ > -ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED static tree > +static tree > handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, > tree name, > tree args, > int /*flags*/, > bool* no_add_attrs) > { > + if (!SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY) > + /* Treat init_priority as an unrecognized attribute (mirroring the > + result of __has_attribute) if the target doesn't support init > + priorities. */ > + return error_mark_node; > + > tree initp_expr = TREE_VALUE (args); > tree decl = *node; > tree type = TREE_TYPE (decl); > @@ -5105,7 +5109,6 @@ handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, > pri); > } > > - gcc_assert (SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY); > SET_DECL_INIT_PRIORITY (decl, pri); > DECL_HAS_INIT_PRIORITY_P (decl) = 1; > return NULL_TREE;
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc index 89c65aca28a..2fe562c7ccf 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.cc @@ -380,6 +380,15 @@ c_common_has_attribute (cpp_reader *pfile, bool std_syntax) result = 201907; else if (is_attribute_p ("assume", attr_name)) result = 202207; + else if (is_attribute_p ("init_priority", attr_name)) + { + /* The (non-standard) init_priority attribute is always + included in the attribute table, but we don't want to + advertise the attribute unless the target actually + supports init priorities. */ + result = SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY ? 1 : 0; + attr_name = NULL_TREE; + } } else { diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc index c30bbeb0839..2324c2269fc 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc @@ -5010,10 +5010,8 @@ const struct attribute_spec cxx_attribute_table[] = { /* { name, min_len, max_len, decl_req, type_req, fn_type_req, affects_type_identity, handler, exclude } */ -#if SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY { "init_priority", 1, 1, true, false, false, false, handle_init_priority_attribute, NULL }, -#endif { "abi_tag", 1, -1, false, false, false, true, handle_abi_tag_attribute, NULL }, { NULL, 0, 0, false, false, false, false, NULL, NULL } @@ -5041,13 +5039,19 @@ const struct attribute_spec std_attribute_table[] = /* Handle an "init_priority" attribute; arguments as in struct attribute_spec.handler. */ -ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED static tree +static tree handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, tree name, tree args, int /*flags*/, bool* no_add_attrs) { + if (!SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY) + /* Treat init_priority as an unrecognized attribute (mirroring the + result of __has_attribute) if the target doesn't support init + priorities. */ + return error_mark_node; + tree initp_expr = TREE_VALUE (args); tree decl = *node; tree type = TREE_TYPE (decl); @@ -5105,7 +5109,6 @@ handle_init_priority_attribute (tree* node, pri); } - gcc_assert (SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY); SET_DECL_INIT_PRIORITY (decl, pri); DECL_HAS_INIT_PRIORITY_P (decl) = 1; return NULL_TREE;