[llvm-dev] Adding [[nodiscard]] to Compiler.h

Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev
Fri, 02 Sep 2016 22:17:55 -0000

Hi Justin,

This SGTM generally, but please make the difference between
LLVM_NODISCARD and LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT clear in the code. :)

However, we have to make a policy decision here:  if I have a
LLVM_NODISCARD "Error" class should functions that return an instance
of Error _also_ be annotated with LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT?  IOW, how much
repetition are we willing to live with to get good diagnostics on
non-clang compilers?

I personally would be happier with _not_ annotating functions return
Error with LLVM_UNSUED_RESULT, since the clang bots would catch
violations anyway, and the code will look slightly neater.

Thanks,
-- Sanjoy


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I started to try to use llvm::Error recently. This has nice runtime
> checks for if you didn't check the result, but I thought it would be
> really nice to get a compiler warning for the obvious cases of this
> rather than having to wait for a runtime check.
>
> This, of course, is exactly what the C++17 [[nodiscard]] attribute is
> for - with new enough compilers in C++17 mode we can just declare the
> class like so:
>
>   class [[nodiscard]] Error { ... };
>
> So, I'd like to add an LLVM_NODISCARD macro to Compiler.h, and this is
> where it gets interesting. Pre-C++17, clang already allows
> __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) and [[clang::warn_unused_result]] to
> be used on a class this way, with equivalent affects, so it'd be nice
to
> use that if we aren't building in C++17 mode.
>
> We already have a LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT defined to this, but AFAICT gcc
> only allows it on function declarations, and the MSVC equivalent
> (_Check_return_) seems like it's not allowed on types either. I guess
we
> want a new macro LLVM_NODISCARD, that's [[nodiscard]] if available,
else
> [[clang::warn_unused_result]] if we're clang (maybe even clang 3.6 and
> up, I'm not sure if it works before that), else empty.
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev



--
Sanjoy Das