rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:5273
+ namespace empty_namespace {};
+ using empty_namespace::does_not_exist __attribute__((using_if_exists)); //
no error!
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > erik.pilkington wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > erik.pilkington wrote:
> > > > > Mordante wrote:
> > > > > > Mordante wrote:
> > > > > > > Can you add an example using `[[clang::using_if_exists]]` or use
> > > > > > > that instead of this attribute?
> > > > > > Why is the attribute placed here? I would expect the attribute
> > > > > > before the declaration `[[clang::using_if_exists]] using
> > > > > > empty_namespace::does_not_exist;`
> > > > > The attribute is written like that because clang rejects C++ style
> > > > > attributes on using declarations, and only accepts attributes in that
> > > > > position. I think this is the first attribute we actually support on
> > > > > using-declarations, so maybe we should consider supporting it.
> > > > > I think this is the first attribute we actually support on
> > > > > using-declarations, so maybe we should consider supporting it.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't the first attribute we *should* be supporting on using
> > > > declarations. Any attribute that appertains to a `NamedDecl` should
> > > > apply as should the annotate attribute.
> > > >
> > > > However:
> > > > ```
> > > > [[clang::whatever]] using foo::bar; // Correct to reject, #1
> > > > using foo::bar [[clang::whatever]]; // Correct to reject, #2
> > > > ```
> > > > #1 is rejected because it's a declaration-statement and those cannot
> > > > have a leading attribute-specifier-seq
> > > > (http://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.stmt#stmt.pre-1). #2 is rejected because
> > > > the using-declaration cannot have a trailing attribute-specifier-seq
> > > > (http://eel.is/c++draft/namespace.udecl#nt:using-declaration).
> > > >
> > > > This seems like a case where we may want to explore an extension to C++
> > > > that we propose to WG21.
> > > > This isn't the first attribute we *should* be supporting on using
> > > > declarations. Any attribute that appertains to a NamedDecl should apply
> > > > as should the annotate attribute.
> > >
> > > Yeah, agreed. Its just that Sema was failing to call
> > > ProcessDeclAttributeList for UsingDecls, so no attributes were actually
> > > getting applied in practice.
> > >
> > > Okay, if our policy is to only parse C++-style attributes in places that
> > > the C++ grammar allows them then I agree that this would be an issue for
> > > the standards committee.
> > I would be in favour to implement this as an extension and propose it to
> > the committee. I wonder whether it's not allowed because the committee
> > objected or nobody wrote a paper. (Attributes are already allowed on using
> > namespace directives http://eel.is/c++draft/namespace.udir.)
> I wouldn't be opposed to adding an extension for parsing C++-style attributes
> on parts of a using declaration so long as we diagnosed them as an extension
> to alert people to portability issues. I would say that the attribute should
> be written as a prefix attribute (similar to the using-directive grammar) and
> after the using-declarator. This would allow you to do:
> ```
> [[]] using foo::bar;
> using foo::bar [[]];
> using foo::bar [[]], baz::quux;
> ```
FWIW, this matches my intuition for attribute placement.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90188/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90188
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
