Thank you for the information, I'll continue to support it without warning about it being an extension.
~Aaron On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Fariborz Jahanian <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Author: fjahanian >>> Date: Fri Oct 21 17:27:12 2011 >>> New Revision: 142693 >>> >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=142693&view=rev >>> Log: >>> c++: support gcc's application of weak attribute on >>> class declaration which forces any such class and any >>> class that inherits from such a class to have their >>> typeinfo symbols be marked as weak. >>> // rdar://10246395 >> >> Sorry to resurrect an ancient commit, but I happened to be in the code >> working on attribute subjects. >> >> As best I can tell, gcc does not support this construct. I used the >> codegen test from this commit and got: >> >> http://ideone.com/2TxMtR >> http://goo.gl/EU1HT9 (gcc.godbolt.com) >> >> It seems that it emits a warning in gcc: 'weak' attribute does not >> apply to types. >> >> So the question becomes: should I continue to support weak on a class >> declaration with my refactoring, should this feature be removed from >> clang, or should there be a separate refactoring to note that this is >> a clang-specific extension? > > It was an extension in Apple's GCC and yes, please continue to support this > in your refactoring: it's still an important feature. We added the feature to > Clang specifically because users of Apple GCC requested it. > > - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
