On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15/01/2014 11:41, Alp Toker wrote: >> >> >> On 15/01/2014 06:04, Nico Weber wrote: >>> >>> Does gcc allow this for C? Is C planning on standardizing this? >> >> >> The impression I get is that everybody's doing it but nobody's talking >> about it. Yet. >> >> ISO C is reactionary so if we set a sensible standard there's a reasonable >> shot at getting it adopted. Likewise OpenMP and other dialects -- they'll go >> with the mainstream. >> >> This is also why we should use a name that's already recognised like >> "generalized attributes." Language bodies simply won't accept a foreign name >> like "C++ attributes" -- it has never happened before, given how fiercely >> independent these committees are -- so they'll end up each going their own >> route, choosing their own names. It's a better plan to consolidate >> proactively here. > > > To be clear, this isn't just about naming. The syntaxes will also end up > differing if we end up with disparate "C++ attributes", "OpenMP attributes", > "OpenCL attributes" (?), "C attributes" -- potentially a bunch of different > specifications and quirky parse rules with no way out.
We're already in this situation today, even within the "same" language. C++11 uses [[]] while C++/CLI uses []. The last time this came up in the C committee (from what I understand) was 2009 (N1403) and leaned towards __attribute__ as the specifier. So I don't think there's a way we can push this as a cross-language "generalized" attribute feature. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
