在 2020/2/4 上午2:37, Edward Diener 写道:
> On 2/2/2020 8:11 AM, Liu Hao wrote:
>> 在 2020/2/1 下午7:06, Edward Diener 写道:
>>> Given the code:
>>>
>>> class cbase;
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> typedef int __attribute__ ((__stdcall__)) (cbase::* atype)();
>>> typedef int __attribute__ ((__cdecl__)) (cbase::* btype)();
>>> typedef int __attribute__ ((__fastcall__)) (cbase::* ctype)();
>>> typedef int __attribute__ ((__thiscall__)) (cbase::* dtype)();
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
> This does not make sense to me as the compiler seems to be objecting to
> just having different pointer to member function types with different
> calling conventions for the same class, as if all member functions for a
> class must have the same calling conventions. Does gcc not allow
> different calling conventions for different member functions of a class,
> and, if so, where is this documented ?
>
>
If I substitute the first typedef with an equivalent(?)
using-declaration then I get a warning:
```
test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cc:5:65: warning: ‘__stdcall__’ attribute only applies to function
types [-Wattributes]
using atype = int __attribute__ ((__stdcall__)) (cbase::* )();
```
It looks to me that in the typedef case, the stdcall attribute attaches
to the `int`, not the (indirect) function type. So long as GCC parses it
as such, this eliminates the warning:
```
typedef int ( __attribute__ ((__stdcall__ )) cbase::* atype)();
// ^_______parenthesis_moved_______/
```
The mangled names of these two types (which can be examined using
`typeid(___).name`) don't differ, so I presume it is kind of a bug in
intermediate representation.
--
Best regards,
LH_Mouse
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
