On 15/01/2014 14:58, Aaron Ballman wrote:
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 [].
For what it's worth we have both C++ and C++/CLI syntaxes supported
cooperatively in the Nuanti C++/CLI compiler product.
Looking at our implementation now, it's just a routine check in the
parser (one bracket is for C++/CLI, two are for C++11). Doesn't even
requiring disambiguation, except that the C++/CLI syntax can only appear
on declarations.
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.
That's not surprising -- there wasn't a generalized solution back in
2009. The C++/CLI syntax which would have been the most viable at the
time wasn't suitable for use in attributed statements due to ambiguity.
Alp.
~Aaron
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
