Sirraide wrote: I’ve implemented what we’ve decided on as a result of the RFC and also renamed the attribute to `CXXAssumeAttr` and the OpenMP one to `OMPAssumeAttr` so we don’t confuse the two.
> > But it sounds like my idea doesn't have legs because of OpenMP > > specification requirements. I'm fine with (3) as an approach then. > > I think a hybrid approach between (3) and what you’re suggesting might make > sense: > > 1. Introduce `[[omp::assume]]` for OpenMP (if that isn’t already a thing) > 2. Deprecate `[[clang::assume]]` and `__attribute__((assume))`, telling > people to use `[[omp::assume]]` or `[[assume]]` instead, depending on where > we encounter the attribute, and maybe, eventually > 3. Change `__attribute__((assume))` (and `[[clang::assume]]` if we care > enough about that one) to be synonyms for `[[assume]]`. @AaronBallman, @erichkeane Thoughts on this? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
