On 06/17/2010 07:22 PM, Nelson Elhage wrote: > Hi Sean, > > I've been working on a patch to implement -finstrument-functions in > clang, which includes a no_instrument_function attribute. (See [1] for > my earlier patch to LLVM, which Chris Lattner recommended pushing > entirely into clang). When I updated today, I found a conflict with your > attribute work, and saw the comment about not touching Attr.td without > contacting you. > > What's the plan with regard to adding support for new attributes while > your work is in progress? I'd ideally like to be able to send my patch > for review before the end of the summer -- do you have a sense of when > you'll be unfreezing Attr.td? Or is it sufficiently stable enough that > adding a new trivial attribute should be fine? > > (As an aside, having written a patch to add an attribute, +1 to cleaning > up the attribute system, and of course I'm not suggesting this should in > any way block your work. I mostly just want to have a sense of whether I > should put this aside in favor of other projects for a while) > > Thanks, > > - Nelson Elhage
Adding a new attribute should be fine; that comment was direct at someone interested in changing the schema. Please leave the DoNotEmit bit set. I'll update the comment to reflect this. Thanks, Sean _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
