RIscRIpt added a comment. In D133853#3792518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853#3792518>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm wondering what the goal is for these changes. ... Are you intending to > add semantics for these attributes in follow-up patches? To be honest, I wasn't planning to do any of follow-up patches. I made a patch for internal usage at my job, and decided to submit it upstream. The main reason I (we) need this patch is that we need to be able to parse MSVC-specific code (in the current case - detect `constexpr` functions). Since Visual Studio 17.3 (MSVC 14.33.31629), Microsoft's STL library added `[[msvc::constexpr]]` attribute, which is not documented yet, but makes a function to act like a `constexpr` function: see this godbolt sample <https://godbolt.org/z/76fYq145d> (i.e. forbids non-constexpr statements inside). To make the patch complete, I decided to browse previous Microsoft's STL versions and see which vendor specific (`msvc::`) attributes they added previously; in this patch I added all attributes I was able to find. > We don't typically add attributes to Clang that don't have any effect unless > there's a very compelling reason to do so. Theoretically, I could re-submit (or adjust this) patch, which would add support for `[[msvc::constexpr]]` attribute with semantic meaning of `constexpr` for functions (for code parsed with `-fms-extensions` flag). Regarding other attributes - unfortunately they are either poorly documented, or not documented at all, so I can drop commits for these attributes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133853 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
