On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FWIW, I continue to think we should fix the attribute design first >> before spreading its use throughout LLVM and Clang. I'm not going to >> review any patches spreading its use until we get the design right, as >> I don't have any rational basis on which to evaluate them given a >> flawed design. >> >> It seemed like there was no real disagreement about what the right >> long-term design is, and so I'm confused why we aren't just making >> that so, and are instead spending reviewer time (and your time!) on a >> path that we will eventually reverse. > > I don't think that anyone is talking about fundamentally changing how the > existing per-function attributes are modeled. Bill is interested and working > on *generalizing* that to support target specific codegen-level options, but > I don't think that invalidates the use case for target-independent ones like > optsize or even ssp. > > What is your specific concern?
There is a separate thread where this was discussed in more detail. By "the attribute design" I really meant "this specific attribute's design", nothing to do with the attribute system in general. Anyways, the discussion was resolved on the separate thread. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
