jdoerfert added a comment. In D63845#1560605 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63845#1560605>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D63845#1559995 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63845#1559995>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > What's the target use-case here? What can't be solved with normal > > attributes? > With "normal" you mean something like `__attribute__((noescape))`? We don't have them for all attributes, I doubt we want to but I might be wrong. >> I wonder if this should go to cfe+llvm -dev lists first, it's kinda >> intrusive. This is not a review to get this in. Before anything happens an RFC will be issued and discussed. We'll use this to experiment and other people can do so as well. >> I also wonder if all these should cause a clang diagnostic, at least under >> `-Wall`. What do you mean? >> How is versioning expected to be handled? New attribute vs old clang, and >> vice versa. Unknown attributes are not necessarily a problem, they should compile fine ignoring the attribute, or am I wrong? > Also, we already have the `annotate` attribute for passing information > through to LLVM. Why do we need four different ways to do this? I didn't know that one, e.g., it is not in https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html. I glanced it in clang and it did not seem to do the same thing, thus allowing to generate LLVM-IR attributes at the different positions. If it is, we should use it instead. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63845/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
