melver wrote: > RFC regarding canonical wrapping/non-wrapping types in Clang: > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-canonical-wrapping-and-non-wrapping-types/84356 > > Ultimately, a type like what the RFC describes would supersede this PR in > terms of feature completeness and usefulness. I'll close this PR if that RFC > suggests a new direction is required. > > pings: @erichkeane pinging you because you asked about an RFC.
+1 - I'd be in favor of the type-based approach. It does make more sense that this is a type qualifier, vs. an attribute which the compiler might loose as soon as type conversions or take-pointer operations are involved. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115094 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
